Advocates:
['M/S V ELANGOVAN', '', 'R JAIKUMAR', 'A S SATHIESH K', 'S ANBURAJA', 'M P RAJAVELAYUTHAM', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.219 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2022

P.Jeevanantham

...Petitioner/A1

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,

Nangavalli Police Station,

Salem District.

Cr.No.97 of 2017

2.Thiru.Sivasamy,

Spl. Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nangavalli Police Station,

Salem District.

...Respondents/Defacto complainants

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the FIR in Cr.No.97 of

2017 dated 15.05.2017 on the file of the 1^st respondent for the

alleged offences u/s 4A(1a) r/w 4B Tamil Nadu Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Elangovan

For Respondents

: Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioner accused in Crime No.97 of 2017 for the

alleged offences under Sections 4A(1a) r/w 4B Tamil Nadu Open

Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, filed this quash

petition.

2.The gist of the complaint is that on 15.05.2017 at

about 5.45 p.m., the Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to

Nangavalli Police Station along with the constable Sekar was

keeping watch over the area at that time near the Nangavalli

Panchayat Middle School, they found a handbill of Communist

Party of India in size 29.5 cm in length and 21 cm in breadth

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

pasted on the compound of the School calling for a protest

against the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 16.05.2017. In

the poster, it was found that the protest was to be held by the

petitioner. Hence, a case has been registered against him.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the continuation of further proceedings is an abuse of

process of law. He would further submit that the offences

alleged against the petitioner is punishable for a maximum

period of 6 months. Though the case has been registered on

15.05.2017, the Final Report has not been filed by the

respondent Police till date and that there is a specific bar

under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. for the Magistrate to take

cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation which

is more than 4 years in this case. In support of the above

contention, he would rely on the judgments reported in (1981) 3

SCC 34 : AIR 1981 SC 1054 (State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh) and

reported in (1999) 4 SCC 690 (Arun Vyas v. Anitha Vyas).

4.He further submits that in this case, the School

Authorities have not lodged any complaint and there is nothing

to show that the photograph of the handbill was seized and even

mahazar prepared, whether the handbills were printed and stuck

by the petitioner, no investigation has been done. Since it was

a protest against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the

Police got enraged and the petitioner shown as accused.

Showing protest is a hallmark of democracy which cannot be

curtailed by foisting of cases. Hence, having no other option

except to file this quash petition. Hence, the FIR initiated

against the petitioner in Crime No.97 of 2017 on the file of the

first respondent, is prayed to be quashed.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that

the petitioner belonging to Communist Party of India to condemn

the act of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was planning to

hold a protest on 16.05.2017, on 15.05.2017 they pasted

handbills at various places, one such handbill was pasted in the

compound wall of the Panchayat Middle School without the

permission of the concerned, no handbill or poster to be pasted

in the public wall. He further submits that the investigation

in progress, soon Final Report to be filed, investigation cannot

be short circuited by filing the above quash petition, ha