IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Aravinth & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 17853 of 2022 & Crl.MP. Nos. 11375 & 11379 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Abuse of Process of Law - Unlawful Assembly - IPC 143, 145 r/w 149, Sec.7(1)(a) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, 41 Cp Act 1988 - The court quashed the final report filed against the petitioners as the gathering did not fit into the circumstances of unlawful assembly as defined in the law. The court emphasized that mere gathering of more than 5 persons will not amount to any offence unless their actions fit into the provisions found in Section 141 to constitute such assembly as unlawful assembly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, students of a Law College, gathered and raised slogans against the Sri Lankan Government, demanding Tamil Eelam issues, and blocked the road, leading to charges under IPC and Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case did not constitute any offence and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the gathering and protest by the petitioners constituted an unlawful assembly and if the prosecution's case justified the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the mere gathering of more than 5 persons will not amount to any offence unless their actions fit into the provisions found in Section 141 to constitute such assembly as unlawful assembly.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the final report filed against the petitioners was quashed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.2309 of 2016, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.VII, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.2309 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 143, 145 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1) (a) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and 41 Cp Act 1988 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.VII, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same.
2. The crux of the case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2014, the petitioners who are studying in a Law College along with their friends without obtaining permission have gathered opposite to Chennai Ambedkar Government Law College and raised a slogan against "Srilankan Government, demanding their Tamil Ealam issues" and blocked the road besides they have also wrongfully restrained movement of the public and thereby committed the offence under aforesaid sections.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have gathered and raised slogans against Srilankan Governmnet, demanding their Tamil Ealam Issues and they have also sought justification in International Court against the President of the neighbouring country. Except the present case no other allegation before made against these petitioners and they made such protest in a democratic way and even when the entire prosecution case taken as a face value, the same would not constitute any offence and continuing the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, submitted that the same may be quashed.
4. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] submitted that the accused illegally assembled and caused disruption to the public, thereby they have been prosecuted.
5. It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court should be slow, at the same time, if the Court finds that from the entire materials collected by the prosecution taken as a whole, would not constitute any offence, in such situation, directing the parties to undergo ordeal of trial will be a futile exercise and it will infringe the right of the persons and in this regard, the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, has been held as follows :
'........ (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned A
Mere gathering of more than 5 persons will not amount to any offence unless their actions fit into the provisions found in Section 141 to constitute such assembly as unlawful assembly.
Peaceful protest to air grievances is a fundamental right, and criminal proceedings against such protesters for unlawful assembly are unsustainable if there is no evidence of public disturbance, spec....
The act of protesting does not necessarily constitute the alleged offences, and hindrance caused to the movement of the general public due to a protest does not necessarily attract the alleged offenc....
The Court affirmed the right to peaceful protest, stating that mere assembly does not constitute an unlawful assembly without evidence of violence or obstruction.
The court can quash criminal proceedings when allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 482 can be used to quash proceedings if the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence, as outli....
Assembly must meet specific criteria to constitute unlawful assembly; mere presence is insufficient for liability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.