BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 20/11/2023 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.20699 of 2023

1.Gopinath

2.Parthasarathy

3.Marikani

4.Vadivel

5.Kajendra Muthu

6.Stephen Raj

7.Gowtham Bharathi

8.Senthil

9.Manikandan

10.Ajith Kumar

11.Selvaraj

12.Abu Thahir

13.Senthil : Petitioners/A1 to A9, A11 to A14 Vs.

1.The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District.

(In Crime No.135 of 2018) : R1/Complainant

2.M.Sundarapandian, Sub Inspector of Police-6499, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District. : R2/De-facto Complainant PRAYER:-Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in STC No.480 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and quash the same as devoid of merits and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in STC No.480 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

On 13/02/2018, the petitioners along with others assembled illegally before the Exist of East Entrance Gate of Madurai City Melaveli Road, Railway Station and staged protest against the privatization of the Railway Department by the Central Government, thereby caused inconvenience to the public and made traffic jam. Upon which, a case in Crime No.135 of 2018 was registered for the offences under sections 143, 188 and 341 IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed and it was taken cognizance in STC No.480 of

2018 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

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

4.Heard both sides.

5.For attracting the offence under section 143 IPC, the ingredients of section 141 IPC must be fulfilled.

6.Section 141 IPC reads as under:-

"Section 141.Unlawful assembly.-An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly:, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-

First-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right: or Fifth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."

7.When we apply the ingredients to the factual position of the case, it is seen that none of the ingredients mentioned in 141 IPC get attracted. They have simply made protest against the Central Government. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioners. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal'.

8.Section 341 IPC reads as under:-

"341.Punishment for wrongful restrain.-Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.”

9.Similarly, section 341 is not attracted. There is no allega