2018 Supreme(Mad) 4483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Parthiban, J.
V.Gowthaman – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by Its Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.R.C. No.1453 of 2018 and Crl.M.P. Nos. 16983 and 16984 of 2018
Decided On : 17-12-2018

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 143, 145, 147, 188, 189, 229-A,353 and 506(i) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 4,5,161(3),173(2),245,258,482 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 - Section 39 - Chennai City Police Act, 1888 - Section 41- Bombay Police Act - Section 33(1) - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 19,19(3),51-A - Quash of Criminal - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Punishment for rioting - Punishment - Power to stop proceedings in certain cases - FIR was registered against petitioners along with others - Initially these petitioners along with others had approached this Court in seeking to quash FIR registered against them - After hearing submissions of parties Judge of this Court vide his order dismissed said Crl.O.P - Filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C Before Judge on behalf of petitioners lengthy arguments were advanced stating that there was no substance in complaint which gave rise to filing of FIR - Judge after adverting to submissions of both sides has passed a detailed order and finally that there were sufficient materials available for prosecution to proceed against petitioners - After holding as such Crl.O.P came to be dismissed - Thereafter a charge sheet was filed for offence as aforementioned and these petitioners filed a discharge petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C to discharge them from prosecution case - Judicial Magistrate who heard discharge petition has passed a detailed order on consideration of observation made by single Judge of this Court while dismissing earlier Crl.O.P - Filed by these petitioners and on basis of law laid down by this Court and Honble Supreme Court of India and finally found that there was no merit in petition and hence discharge petition came to be dismissed - As against said order present Crl - Revision Case has been filed - Counsel appearing for petitioners has reiterated same submissions which he made before Judge of this Court in -Arguments as advanced by counsel for petitioners were thoroughly considered by Judge of this Court while dealing with petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Judge has discountenanced arguments and that quash petition was without merits and dismissed same and further went on to hold that there were sufficient materials to proceed against these petitioners and arguments that were put forth before Judge of this Court in above Crl.O.P - Relevant portion of order passed by Judge as found from paragraph are extracted herein under - Whether there is any prima facie material to proceed against accused - Whether group or demonstrators have a right to demonstrate at a particular place in heart of city- Whether a restriction in effect amounts to a total prohibition or not is a question of fact which has to be determined with regard to facts and circumstances of each case - Held, Court is therefore unable to appreciate submissions made on behalf of petitioners that petitioners have a right to demonstrate at a place and time they choose without authority of law and adopt unlawful method only with a view to seek publicity and yet calling such protest as a manifestation of fundamental constitutional expressions speak of their sanctimonious conduct and smugness - Such cheeky submissions are unworthy to say least to be accorded constitutional patronage - This State has been witnessing agitations galore under pretext of highlighting public issues by various sections of people across Board - It appears that lately entire State has been on an agitation mode all time that one finds agitation happening in every nook and corner of State grabbing attention of media and public at large - In most of these agitations one always finds certain self-serving and self-styled leaders pitchfork themselves in forefront and shepherd these agitations ostensibly for espousing a public cause but invariably end up harming public interest more than they seek to advance such interest - These self-appointed custodians of public interest on many occasions have scant regard for rule of law and many a time they hold public to ransom in guise of protesting against certain policies of State - Such self appointed custodians are not accountable to any authority and in name of highlighting grievances of public are in fact disturbing tranquility and larger public order - Ramification of such agitations is emergence of several fringe groups and elements who have no qualms for constitutional order and in furtherance of their covert agenda on many occasions hijack otherwise presumable legitimate demonstration by aggrieved sections of people - These fringe groups under cover of public agitation indulge in shenanigans and snatch away true purpose and social significance of such agitations - Ultimately such agitations driven by vicious groups cause damage to democratic polity and so-called public cause gets derailed in bargain - This Court is conscious of fact that agitations do sometimes represent legitimate resentment of certain sections of people against policies of Government but at same time there cannot be endless agitations at drop of a hat for each and every issue leading to subordination of rule of law to demonstrative instincts of so-called aggrieved class - Today State has become a fertile place for agitations of all kinds of epidemic proportions resulting in flourishing of fringe groups and elements and their infiltration into peoples movement - Such groups or elements masquerade themselves as crusaders espousing public cause and interest but in fact promote fissiparous tendencies among gullible mass with a view to subvert established constitutional order - These vigilante groups always exhibit contumacious conduct and seek to polarise society and when faced with action by State for their conflict with rule of law they unabashedly seek constitutional cover when law hurts them - In instant case a detailed order has been passed by Magistrate finding that there is more than prima facie material is available - In this regard though learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed demonstration to take place in area Honble Division Bench of this Court has over turned single Judge order and that right to protest is not a right to cause inconvenience to general public - Revision Petition Dismissed