ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.837/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.

2. The case of the prosecution:-

(i) The second respondent is the defacto complainant. He was working as a Head Constable in B5, South Gate (Law & Order) Police Station, Madurai City. On 22.07.2019, at about 10.15 a.m, when he was in patrolling duty near the Vadamalaiyan Hospital, Chinnakadai Junction, South Marret Street, South Gate, Madurai City, he found the petitioner along with some other persons conducted agitation against the Madurai Corporation for non supply of sufficient drinking water. They staged a road roko agitation. He informed the petitioners that it is the main route, traffic is also high and also they must disperse. But, the petitioner and other did not hear the request made by him. So, with this allegation, he lodged a complaint with the first respondent. Upon which, a case in Crime No.282 of 2019 was registered. Investigation also undertaken by the first respondent police and after completing the investigation, they filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai. Which was taken on filed in C.C.No.837 of 2020.

3. Seeking quashment of the final report, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that what was demanded is drinking water to the locality to which the petitioners belong, which can not be construed as illegal or unlawful. Moreover, none of the offences mentioned in the final report attract any of the ingredients mentioned in those Sections against these petitioners. He would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and others Vs The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station Karur District, reported in 2018 (2) L.W.(Crl.) 606 and further judgments.

4. Heard both sides.

5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 22.07.2019, at about 10.15 a.m, staged a road roko agitation near the Vadamalaiyan Hospital, Chinnakadai Junction, South Marret Street, South Gate, Madurai City, demanding sufficient supply of water to the locality to which the petitioners belong. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a peaceful assembly and agitation was also peaceful and they did not cause any nuisance to the public or indulged in breach of peace in that area. Water is a basic necessity, which the Corporation bound to supply sufficiently.

6. A similar situation in Crl.OP.No.21965 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019 in M.Nithyanandam Vs. State and Other, this Court has quashed the final report, which was filed under Sections 143, 341 and 283 IPC. In that case, the village people gathered in the place of occurrence and sat on the public road and staged a road roko agitation demanding supply of water. This Court by observing that food, water and shelter are the basic necessities for human life. Protesting and demanding basic amenities through a peaceful agitation cannot be construed as unlawful. As mentioned earlier, it may not be construed or consider as illegal demand.

7. So, the consistent view of this Court that peaceful agitation or protest demanding basic requires or necessities is permissible under the democratic setup. That cannot be construed as unlawful. Unless the first respondent is able to say that it turned violent, but, there is no such averments.

8. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly in the following words:-

“141. Unlawful assembly – An assembly of five or more persons is designated and 'unlawful assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is –

First – To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, (the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State), or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second – To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third – To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth – By means