The court held that an F.I.R. under Section 188 IPC cannot be registered without a written complaint by a public servant, and peaceful assembly for lawful demands cannot be deemed unlawful without specific overt acts.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking Section 528 of BNSS seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.T.C.No. 175 of 2023, pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.06.2020 at about 10.50 hours near Karur-Paramathi Bazar street, the petitioners being the members of the CPI(M) political party had assembled unlawfully, when the Covid-19 lock down was in force and conducted a demonstration raising various demands that 100 days work scheme is to be extended to 200 days with a pay of Rs.350/- per day, that the State and Central Governments have to pay Rs.7,500/-per month for people affected with Corona and that the ration shops are to be directed to give10kg per person.

3. The second respondent has registered F.I.R., in Cr.No.322 of 2020 against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences under Sections 143 , 188, 269 I.P.C., r/w 3 of EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT .

4. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the members of the National Political Party, that they have assembled to raise lawful demands with the State and Central Governments and as such, the same cannot be considered as unlawful assembly, that since there is no complaint in writing as contemplated under Section 195 (1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., the registration of F.I.R., and filing of the charge sheet under Section 188 I.P.C., is illegal, that even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true, the act of the petitioners cannot be considered as negligent act, as there is no material to show that their assembly will spread the corona virus and that therefore, the petitioners are constrained to file the present petition seeking quashment of the above case.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the members of the CPI(M) party conducted agitation raising various demands including to pay Rs.7,500/- for the corona affected people by the State and Central Governments, that the petitioners were in no way connected with the alleged offences, that there are no specific overt acts attributed against them and that the petitioners have never committed any offences as alleged. The learned Counsel would further submit that there is a clear bar for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 172 to 199 I.P.C., without complaint as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

6. It is necessary to refer the decision of 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), wherein this Court has dealt with the same issue 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 leg