ORDER

The petitioners, who are second and third accused in Crime No.171 of 2020 for offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 41, 71A(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and 4B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, have filed quash petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that without getting permission of Commissioner of Police, Chennai and knowing very well that under Section 41 prohibitory order issued not to conduct any illegal meeting, procession, fasting, demonstration and human-chain, the petitioners and some others assembled together, raising slogans and protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act enacted by the Central Government, thereby caused nuisance to the public and transportation services. At that time, the respondent asked them to disperse from the said place. But they failed to obey the order, they gathered many more people in that place through the vehicle Tata Ace bearing registration number TN-11-C-7287, they brought food and water bottles for the protestors by more than 10 vehicles. Hence, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.171 of 202 for offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 290 IPC, (6), 71(A)(i) TNCP Act & 4-B r/w 4A(1a) of Tamil Nadu Open Place Disfigurement Act 1959.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are social activists, who raise their voice for public cause and public welfare, whenever there seems to be injustice. They are law abiding citizens. The allegations in the FIR neither has any criminal force nor reveals any specific role of these petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely express one's view are constitutionally protected rights under Part III and their enjoyment can be only in proportional manner through a fair and non-arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of Constitution of India. It is the duty of the Government to protect the right to freedom of speech that is so essential to a democracy. However, when there lot of members participated in the protest, the respondent police filed a FIR under Sections 143, 145, 147, 290 IPC, 1860 and Sec.4(6), 71(A)(i) of TNCP Act and Sec. 4-B r/w 4A (1a) of TNOPD Act 1959 as against the petitioners.

4. He further submitted that demonstration is not against law and it was conducted as per the provisions of law and no hindrance occurred to the transportation services as mentioned in the FIR. The respondent with a malafide intention has falsely implicated the petitioners in this case. In respect of the same issue, The Hon’ble Maduri Bench of Madras High Court quashed more than 100 FIRs and in one of its order dated 05.11.2020 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12448 of 2020, Henri Tiphangne Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police and Another, while quashing the FIR and observed as follows:

“Though there are prima facie materials to justify the registration of the First Information Report, I am of the view that its continuance is not warranted. This is because no untoward incident had taken place. The country had witnessed protests all over by different sections of people against the said amendments. Since the protest was peaceful and even the First Information Report does not disclose any act of violence or happening of untoward incident, I am of the view that the continued prosecution is not warranted. Quashing the same will secure the ends of justice.

5.As far as Section 143 IPC is concerned, the concerned police officer has to quote Section.30(2) of the Police Act instead of Section 143 IPC. However, the respondent straight away proceeded to register the FIR under Section 143 IPC for mere violationof so-called promulgation under Section 30(2) of the Police Act. It will not make out an offence under Section 143 IPC by straight away declaring an assembly of persons to be an unlawful assembly. As earlier held by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Jeevanandham& others vide or