The main legal point established is that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be sparingly exercised and that the Court should not express views on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the S.T.C.No.150 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and quash the as against the petitioners herein.

1. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.3 to 5, 8, 10 to 14, 16 to 18, 20, 22 to 24, 28,29, 31, 32, 34, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 55, 57 to 60 and 70 to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.150 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur. Similarly, Crl.O.P. (MD)No.1512 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner / Accused No.1 to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.150 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2018, the petitioners and others were formed unlawful assembly and blocked the traffic, thereby prevented the public. Besides, without any permission, they have also advertised their party symbol on both sides wall of the over bridge, belonged to the Highways Department, while there is promulgation under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861. Hence, a compliant was made on 27.01.2018 and FIR in Crime No.91 of 2018 was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Section 341, 143 & 188 of IPC read with 'Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement Act, 1959)' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act'). After investigation, the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.150 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur. Hence, the petitioners came forward to file these Criminal Original Petitions to quash the same.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the case is nothing, but result of political motive, as A1 is the opponent political party. The petitioners have just shown their protest against the Government and assembled themselves and they have no intention to commit any offence to overawe by criminal forcer, or show of criminal force or to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the accused were formed unlawful assembly, the offence under Section 143 of IPC has not been made out. Similarly, the materials collected by the prosecution in its entirety taken together does not make out an offence under Section 341 of IPC and the prosecution has recorded the statements only from the police personals. The statement did not indicate the wrongful restraint of any one. Similarly, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the offence under Section 188 of IPC should not have been taken cognizance by the trial Court. Such cognizance is prohibited under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Further it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that in respect of Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement Act, 1959), the maximum punishment is three years. The entire materials collected by the prosecution do not specify the ingredients of the offence under the said Act. Hence, it is submitted that continuing the prosecution case is only abuse of process of law and no offence is made out and the entire prosecution is actuated with malice and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandam and others Vs. State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl) 606.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the offence under Section 4(1) of the said Act is a cognizable offence. Besides 341 IPC is also a cognizable offence and there is no bar under Law to investigate the offence under Section 188 IPC. What is prohibited is only for taking cognizance. Even if cognizance is taken, the entire proceedings shall not be vitiated in view of