Proceedings can be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence; unlawful assembly must show criminal intent and conduct.

ORDER :

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5965 of 2023 which was split up from C.C.No.1253 of 2020, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.2019, at 11:30 AM, the petitioner along with others gathered illegally near the K-10 Police Station, on Kaliamman Kovil Road, 100 Feet Road, in front of the UBER CALL TAXI office, blocking the public path and obstructing traffic. The Assistant Inspector Muhammad Imdadullah, along with his team, arrived and instructed them to disperse. However, the group disregarded the officer's orders and continued to block the road. Based on this, the respondent police registered a complaint in Crime No.778 of 2019, against the petitioner and other for the offence punishable under Sections 143 r/w Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.5965 of 2023 which was split up from C.C.No.1253 of 2020, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.5965 of 2023 which was split up from C.C.No.1253 of 2020, on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 143 r/w Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, as against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the investigation is completed and the respondent police filed the final report before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.5965 of 2023.

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

6. It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482/ Section 528, 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