ORDER

1. This order will govern the disposal of MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20, 36823/20, 37695/20, 39757/20, 29043/20 & 39474/20 as it is jointly submitted by counsel for the parties that all these MCRCs involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.

2. These MCRCs have been filed for quashing the FIR registered by the police for offence under section 188 of the IPC.

3. For convenience the facts are noted from MCRC No.32779/20.

4. This MCRC has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.5/2020 registered at Police Station Sarafa, Indore. FIR has been registered against the petitioners for commission of offence under section 188 & 34 of the IPC with the allegation that on 15.1.2020 the petitioners had staged a demonstration against CAA and NRC without giving any intimation or taking prior permission from the competent authority, whereas the District Magistrate in order to maintain peace and tranquillity had issued the order No./2322/R.A.D.M./2019, and Order No./2323/R.A.D.M./2019 dated 10.12.2019 prohibiting any demonstration, procession, public meeting etc. in any place without permission. It is further alleged that in addition to the petitioners, there were other 200 persons who had violated the order of the District Magistrate and, therefore, committed the offence under section 188 of the IPC.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of section 195(1)(a)(i) there is a bar for taking cognizance of offence under section 188 of the IPC and for that purpose a complaint under section 200 of the CrPC is required to be filed and FIR cannot be registered. They further submit that for registering the FIR obstruction, annoyance, injury or threat to life and safety is necessary and that the order of the District Magistrate was not communicated to the petitioners. They further submit that right of demonstration is a fundamental right. In support of their submission they have relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 23.2.2017 in Criminal Application No.6265/2016 (Shrinath Gangadhar Giram v. State of Maharashtra and Another), judgment of Madras High Court dated 20.9.2018 in Criminal OP No.1356/2018 and connected petitions in the case of Jeevanandham and others v. State and Another, as also the judgment of the Madras High Court in Criminal OP No .9487/2020 dated 26.6.2020 in the case of Shamsul Huda Bakavi v. State reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 1298, judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anita Thakur and others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (2016) 15 SCC 525, the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court dated 2.11.2020 passed in MCrC No.44006/2019 in the case of Gopal Bhargava v. State of M.P. and the judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Jyotiraditya Scindia dated 7.2.2014 passed in W.A. No.888/2013 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and has submitted that there is no bar under section 195 of the CrPC in registering the FIR for offence under section 188 of the IPC and the bar under section 195 comes into operation at the stage of taking cognizance. He has further submitted that the offence under section 188 of the IPC is a cognizable offence and in the State of M.P. it is non bailable offence, therefore, the police officer is competent to register the FIR. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and Another reported in 1998 (2) SCC 391, in the matter of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2003(11) SCC 251 and in the matter of Vishal Agrawal and Another v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and another reported in (2014) 3 SCC 696.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and peruse