ORDER :

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the first respondent police in Crime No.36 of 2018, dated 23.01.2018 and quash the same as devoid of merits against the petitioner.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.36 of 2018 on the file of the respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.01.2018, at about 11.00 am in front of the North Gate of Madurai Periyar Bus Stand, under the leadership of the District Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), 161 men and 16 women assembled unlawfully and raised slogans against the bus fare hike in Tamil Nadu; that by sitting in the road and not allowing the buses to proceed, caused disturbance to the public and hence, they were arrested and were taken to the Thideer Nagar Police Station and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 36 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 341, 143 and 188 IPC, against 178 persons, including the petitioner herein.

3. The petitioner is the 83rd accused in Crime No.36 of 2018 on the file of the respondent Police.

4.The case of the petitioner is that there was a bus fare hike and against which, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) conducted state wide slogan raising agitation in all Districts of Tamil Nadu; that the petitioner was in no way connected with the alleged offence and he is innocent; that there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner; that the petitioner has never committed any offence as alleged and that therefore, he is constrained to file the above petitioner, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a clear bar for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC, without a complaint, as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

6. This Court in Vijay Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District in (Crl.OP(MD) Nos.8680 and 8681 of 2019; dated 02.02.2022), has dealt with the same issue and came to the decision that the complaint must be given by a public servant who is lawfully empowered under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and it is mandatory and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder :

“14.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 127-130 of 2008, dated 30.08.2010 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:

“20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Cr.PC like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some requirements are complied with, the court shall not take cognizance of an offence described in