The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to prove the elements of alleged offenses under Sections 143, 341, and 283 IPC, as well as the adherence to the time limitation for filing charge sheets as prescribed in Section 468(2) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records of impugned Charge Sheet in S.T.C.No.939 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.T.C.No.939 of 2022 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul and quash the same.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in S.T.C.No.939 of 2022 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Suppuraj, Village Administrative Officer, Adiyanuthu Village, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1617 of 2020 on 31.07.2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 341, 283 and 269 IPC against the accused including the petitioners herein.

4. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid a final report dated 24.11.2021 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 341 and 283 IPC and the case was taken on file in S.T.C.No.939 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

5. The case of the prosecution is that the Municipality staffs have announced that there shall be a prohibitory order for sacrificing the cattle near Anguvilas area and that on 31.07.2020, the petitioners and others have assembled unlawfully at about 05.00 p.m. and conducted an agitation to the said announcement and thereby caused disturbance to the traffic.

6. According to the prosecution, the High Court has passed an order prohibiting slaughtering of cattle in open places and the Municipality authorities in order to implement the said order had announced on 31.07.2020 evening that there shall be a prohibitory order for slaughtering the cattle for the Bakrid festival instead of saying in public places and that the petitioners and others, though the prohibitory order was in force, had assembled unlawfully and blocked the road and caused disturbance to the traffic.

7. Regarding the offence under Section 143 IPC, it is necessary to refer the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and Others vs State, represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2018(2) LW (Crl.,) 606, and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-

“32.............

2. In all the cases, the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen. If such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and filing a Final Report for the very same offence, no democratic dissent can ever be shown by the citizens and such prohibition will amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”

8. As rightly held in Jeevanandham''s case, the violation of Section 30(2) of the Police Act will not constitute an offence under Section 143 IPC, as an order passed under Section 30(2) of the Police Act is only regulatory in nature, by which, the police cannot prohibit any agitations.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even according to the prosecution, since the Municipality authorities had announced that there shall be a prohibitory order for slaughtering of cattle for the Bakrid festival, the petitioners and others had assembled peacefully and raised objections for the above said announcement, that the prosecution itself has admitted the grave mistake committed by the Municipality authorities in making announcement that there shall be a prohibitory order for slaughtering of cattle for the Bakrid festival instead of there shall be a prohibitory order for slaughtering of cattle in open places, that there was no untoward incident at that time and that since the petitioners and