O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No.324 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi.

2. According to the petitioner based on the complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 290 of IPC and 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act,1888. Thereafter the case has been investigated and charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 290 of IPC and 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act,1888. According to the prosecution case the petitioner and the second respondent travelled by Indigo flight between Chennai to Thoothukudi on 03.09.2018. While the passengers were alighting from the flight, the petitioner herein shouted at the second respondent stating that “ Paasisa Ba.Ja.Ka. Aatchi Ozhiga”. The second respondent preferred complaint to the Airport Manager who in turn preferred complaint with the first respondent. The first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No.285 of 2018. The alleged act of the petitioner could not be construed as offending since there was no complaint against her by the Captain or the other Crew members or any other passenger. The allegations levelled in the complaint preferred by the second respondent stated that she has doubts over the back ground of the petitioner and does not even have a whisper about any nuisance caused to the second respondent or to any other person. The allegations do not constitute any offence under Section 290 of IPC or Section 75(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, even if taken on its face value and hence the charge sheet based on such a complaint ought to be quashed. The petitioner has chosen to vent her anger against the act of the state of killing 13 persons by firing at them at Thoothukudi by raising the slogan alleged to have caused nuisance to the defacto complainant. The same could not be treated to have caused injury, danger, obstruction or annoyance to the complainant herein. Even the alleged overt act taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The First Information Report has been registered for the offences under Sections 290 of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act which are non cognizable and no permission obtained from the learned Magistrate and procedure laid down under Section 155 of Cr.P.C have not been followed. Therefore the charge sheet in S.T.C. No.324 of 2018 is liable to be quashed.

3. No counter was filed by the respondents.

4. In this case intervenor filed intervening petition in Crl.M.P(MD) No.9524 of 2022 stating that entire criminal complaint rests upon the complaint given by the then State President of Tamil Nadu BJP, wherein, if and only the present State President of Tamil Nadu, BJP, the petitioner herein to defend the grounds raised in the present quash petition, the ends of justice could be met and since the slogans is as against the ruling party and he being the member of the party has filed this petition but on perusal of the records it is seen that permission was already granted by this Court and he was impleaded as third respondent in this case. The original complainant was added as second respondent in this case and thereafter the name of the second respondent was deleted and the Airport authority name was included as second respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that according to the complaint, First Information Report has been registered as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 290 of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act and both are non cognizable offences and the procedure under Section 155 of Cr.P.C has not been followed and no permission was obtained from the learned Magistrate and the complaint was not referred to the learned Magistrate, hence there are