ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 504, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.1439 of 2017, as against the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.1439 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 504, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC, alleging that the petitioners are the members of Arappor Iyakkam, a voluntary, citizen's body. On the date of occurrence, a public meeting had been organized by the petitioners in which they spoke about the civic problems which they are facing in their localities. At that time, the first petitioner alleged to have spoken about the encroachment by the local Kalasathamman Temple officials on Government Poramboke land by a particular caste alone. Thereafter, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and they attacked each other.

3. He would further submit that there are absolutely no specific allegations as against the petitioners. The petitioners are members of Arappor Iyakkam an independent, non-partisan group of young professionals working on issues of governance, transparency and civic action. In Ramapuram Village there was a small temple which was surrounded by the Government land. The defacto complainant is one of the temple committee members. A dispute arose in the year 1990 in respect of ownership and possession of the said land. He filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.2191 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Poonamallee, claiming the Government Poromboke land around the temple, belonged to the temple and it was dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Government passed order in G.O.Ms.No.571, (Revenue Department) dated 28.10.1999, sub dividing the Government Poramboke land around the temple into four parts:

(i) One part was assigned to TNEB for building TNEB substation;

(ii) Another part was allotted for the purpose of a public road leading to the EB sub station; and (iii) The other two portions were retained and shown as Government Poramboke land.

4. However, the temple persons/authorities attempted to put up construction on the said land thereby, blocking the access way for general public. Therefore, the first petitioner lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar, Maduravoyal. In pursuant to the said complaint, the Corporation of Chennai issued a stop work notice to the temple authorities. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Maduravoyal convened a peace committee meeting and even then the temple authorities did not stop the construction. Therefore, the first petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint before the Corporation of Chennai and on receipt of the same, an Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, lodged police complaint with the first respondent. The FIR was also registered in Crime No.1482 of 2017, dated 22.11.2017. Only to escape from the clutches of law, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint with the bald and vague allegations. A perusal of FIR and the impugned charge sheet revealed that the entire charges are bald and vague, without any specific overtact as against the petitioners to substantiate the charges.

5. In order to bring the charges to whom that there should be three ingredients which are necessary:

(a) an assembly of 5 or more persons;

(b) who have a common object; and (c) the common object must be relates to one of the five types specified in the provisions.

6. Therefore, no specific averments and allegations are made as against the petitioners to attract the charges as alleged by the prosecution. Even according to the case of the prosecution, no one was injured by the alleged occurrence. Therefore, there is no record to show that the defacto complainant got injured. Even accordi