The court emphasized that police cannot register FIRs under IPC Section 188 without a written complaint from a public servant, affirming the primacy of constitutional rights to assembly and expression.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7672 of 2017 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet at Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2017, at around 14:00 hours, when the complainant and other police officers were patrolling near K.V.P. Garden, Kozhipannai Ground, the petitioner and other accused were protesting against the Tughlaq Magazine for allegedly making false claims about a political party, as well as in support of Jallikattu and Neduvasal. The protest was held without prior permission from the authorities. Despite this, the petitioner and others continued their protest at the same location. As a result, a case was registered against them in Crime No. 369 of 2017, for offences punishable under sections 143, 188, and 285 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely express once view are constitutionally protected rights under Part III and their enjoyment can only be in proportional manner through a fair and non~arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assembly that is so essential to a democracy. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless a public servant has a written order from a competent authority. Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never been involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioner and others. When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143 , 188 and 285 of IPC only as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner and other accused were protesting against the Tughlaq Magazine for allegedly making false claims about a political party, as well as in support of Jallikattu and Neduvasal and there are specific allegations as against the petitioner. Further, he would submit that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case. Though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. More over, the petitioner is an habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner and other accused were protesting against the Tughlaq Magazine for allegedly making false claims about a political party, as well as in support of Jallikattu and Neduvasal. Therefore, the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 , 188 and 285 of I.P.C as against the petitioner and others. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substa