O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the CC No.165 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari, Sivagangai district.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 20/04/2019 at about 09.30 pm, the accused persons assembled unlawfully near Singampunari Sevugamoorthy Temple without prior permission from the concerned authority, raised slogans, caused disturbance to the public and also nuisance to the public. Upon which, a case in Crime No.60 of 2019 was registered for the offence under sections 147, 290 and 341 IPC and after completing the formalities of investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offences under sections 290, 341, 149, 143 and 505(1)(c) IPC and it was taken cognizance in CC No.165 of 2022 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that none of the allegations mentioned in the FIR or in the final report attract any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against them.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Section 143 of IPC defines punishment as under:-

'143.Punishment—Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to six months, or with fine, or with both.'

6.The expression "unlawful assembly" is defined in Section 141 of IPC and any member of the said unlawful assembly is punishable under Section 143 of IPC. If the object of the assembly is not unlawful, the Act cannot attract Section 141 of IPC. Thereby any person forming such assembly cannot neither be convicted under Section 143 of IPC nor can be convicted either under Section 147 or Section 149 of IPC.

7.It is seen that the charge sheet does not state as to how the protest by the petitioners attracted the offence of unlawful assembly. A mere protest by a group of people would not amount to unlawful assembly. There is no allegation in the charge sheet for the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the allegations do not constitute the offence of unlawful assembly as stated, the offence under Section 149 I.P.C., would not be made out.

8.As regards the offence under Section 341 IPC, this Court in similar circumstances held that in Jeevanandham and others Vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 13698 : (2018) 2 LW (Cri) 606 that merely because an hindrance is caused to the movement of general public for sometime due to a protest, the said act would not attract an offence of wrongful restrain. Hence, the offence under Section 341 IPC is not made out.

9.As far as offence under Section 290 of IPC is concerned, as per averments of the charge sheet the petitioners raised slogan.

10.Now it is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 290 of IPC.

“290.Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for — Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.”

11.On careful perusal of the above section, no any averments in the charge sheet to attract the said provision.

12.Section 505(1)(c) IPC reads as under:-

“505.Statements conducing to public mischief — (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,—

(a) ..........

(b)..........

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community;

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

13.A reading of the definition show that there must be clear intention on the part of the petitioners to create fear or alarm to the public and thereby inducing them to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility or any class or community of person to commit any offence against any other class or commun