Back
K. MURALI SHANKAR
R. Mohamed Elias @ Mohamed Eliyas – Appellant
Versus
State represented through The Inspector of Police, Dindigul – Respondent
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.945 of 2022 on the file of the learned 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.945 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.945 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 Mohamed Jakkiriya, Village Administrative Officer, Adiyanuthu Village, Dindigul District, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.2056 of 2020 on 24.12.2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 269 and 341 IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Act against the petitioners herein.
4. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid a final report dated 25.11.2021 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 143 and
The central legal point established in the judgment is that democratic dissent and protests must be protected, and the prosecution must prove the elements of alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
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 tim....
Alleged assembly not meeting the criteria of an unlawful assembly and absence of specific allegations and evidence led to the quashing of proceedings under Section 143 IPC.
The assembly for peaceful protest does not constitute unlawful assembly or wrongful restraint under IPC sections 143 and 341.
Insufficient specific overt acts against the accused can lead to quashing of charges under IPC.
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 central legal point established is that democratic dissent cannot be stifled by registering FIRs for expressing dissatisfaction with governance, and the guidelines for an offence under Section 18....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
