O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the First Information registered in Crime No.756 of 2017 pending on the file of the respondent Police as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 143, 188 and 290 of I.P.C.

2. The allegation in the FIR indicates that on 25.04.2017, when the defacto complainant was on patrol duty with two other policemen, he found that 92 persons under the leadership of one Durai, who belonged to DMK party unlawfully assembled near Manali market without prior permission and raised slogan against the Central Government to waive the loan given to the farmers and to implement the demands made by the farmers and obstructed the public and traffic.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has been launched with false allegations and even when the entire prosecution case is taken on face value, the same would not constitute any offence and continuing the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, the FIR should be quashed.

4. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused unlawfully assembled and caused disturbance to the public and hence, the case is registered.

5. It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be slow. At the same time, if the Court finds that from the entire materials collected by the prosecution taken as a whole does not constitute any offence, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the parties to undergo ordeal of trial. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335; In the said judgment, it is held as follows :

'........

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.’

6. Similarly to attract the offence under Section 188 of IPC, there must be disobedience to the order duly promulgated by the public servant. In this case there is no evidence available to show that the accused has assembled to resist execution of any law. There is no whisper in the First Information Report or in the other materials to show that there were pro