COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.176 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant is the Village

Administrative Officer of Soodiyur Group, Melparthibanur, Paramakudi Taluk. He lodged a complaint stating that on 26/07/2023, one community people conducted Mulaiparai festival. They have taken the Mulaiparai procession through the route of other community area. At that time, there was wordy quarrel between two group of community people. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Paramakudi conducted a peace committee meeting in the presence of both sides. In that meeting, a resolution was passed to immerse the Mulaiparai at Melaparathibanur Kanmai. The same was accepted by both sides. But the accused persons illegally assembled and trying to immerse the Mulaiparai on the Keelaparathibanur Oorani, thereby violated the resolution passed in the peace committee meeting. Upon which, a case in Crime No.176 of 2023 was registered for the offences under sections 143, 188 and 353 of IPC against the accused persons.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A2, A3, A5 and A12 are before this court.

4.Heard both sides.

5.An alleged violation of the condition imposed upon the petitioners.

6.As mentioned in the FIR, it is stated that these petitioners indulged in taking out the Mulaipari procession and immersed the idol in the place not permitted by the officials. There was a peace committee resolution, in which both community people participated. They amicably settled the issue by taking a resolution that the idol will be immersed in Melparthibanur Kanmai. But against the resolution, it is alleged that they immersed the same in the prohibited Kanmai. When that was sought to be prevented by the officials, they were prevented from discharging their duties.

7.For attracting the offence under section 143 of

IPC, the ingredients of section 141 of IPC must be fulfilled.

8.Section 141 of IPC reads as under:-

"Section 141.Unlawful assembly.-An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly:, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-

First-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right: or

Fifth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."

9.Section 353 of IPC reads as under:-

"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge ofhis duty with both."

10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the offences under sections 143 and 353 of IPC are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. But I am unable to agree to this line of argument for the simple reason that even though taking out the procession by immersing the idol is lawful, an unlawful activity was committed by them by violating the peace committee resolution. So when that violation comes in the way, automatically it will amount to unlawful assembly.

11.Similarly, the Revenue Officials and police officials prevented the petitioners from violating the resolution, but they were prevented from their official duty. So, section 143 of IPC clearly attracted against the petitioners.

12.Sect