ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.3969 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as against the petitioners.

2.According to the petitioners, the respondent police registered FIR in Cr.No.25 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 188, 153A(1)(a) IPC as against the petitioners. Thereafter, they filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance in STC.No.3969 of 2019 and the same is pending. According to the case of the prosecution, on 16.01.2018, at about 18.00 hours, the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein working as Sub Inspector of Police attached to the first respondent police station, submitted a special report before the first respondent by stating that while he was being in the protection duty with other police officers at Munichalai Road, Obulapadithurai Madurai Town, at that time, all the petitioners were tried to staged a demonstration by “Tamilnadu Thouhid Jamath” condemning BJP national secretary H.Raja for his controversial comment against prophet Mohamed. During protest sloganeers incendiary chanted that “Hindu Terrorist H.Raja” and “Immigrant Dog” rend the air at a protest. Therefore, FIR has been registered in Cr.No.25 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 188, 153A(1)(a) IPC on 16.01.2018 and thereafter, filed final report and the same was taken on file in STC.No.3969 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

3.No counter was filed by the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the second respondent filed a false complaint as against the petitioners and the same was registered in Cr.No.25 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 188, 153A(1)(a) IPC. As far as Section 188 IPC is concerned, there is a bar to take cognizance under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and further, there was no order of promulgation by the concerned authority and thereby, disobedience of order would not arise. Hence, Section 188 IPC would not arise. He would further contend that as far as Section 153(A)(1)(a) IPC is concerned, pervious sanction has to be obtained from the concerned authority, but in this case, no sanction was obtained and hence, charge sheet in STC.No.3969 of 2019 is liable to be quashed.

5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side)appearing for the first respondent would contend that the petitioners tried to stage a demonstration contemning BJP national secretary H.Raja for his controversial comment as against prophet Mohamed. During protest sloganeers incendiary chanted that “Hindu Terrorist H.Raja” and “Immigrant Dog” rend the air at a protest. Hence, FIR was registered and after elaborate investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same was also taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in STC.No.3969 of 2019. However, he would fairly admit that no promulgation order was passed by the competent authority and no previous sanction was obtained from the concerned authority.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the records.

7.According to the petitioners, the first respondent police registered a case for the offences under Sections 188 and 153A(1)(a) IPC and no order was promulgated at the date of alleged occurrence and no previous sanction was obtained. In this context, it is relevant to extract

195 Cr.P.C.:-

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence –

(1) No Court shall take cognizance—

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punisha