IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.21848 of 2021

and

Crl. M.P. No.11861 of 2021

Mr.A.G.Venkatachalam

... Petitioner/Accused

Versus

1.The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Anthiyur Police Station,

Erode District.

(Cr. No.335 of 2017)

2.Mr.M.Ananthakumar

... Respondents/Complainant/

Defacto Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records

culminating in the S.T.C. No.1800 of 2021 pending on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.

For Petitioner :

Mr.B. Mohan

For Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in S.T.C. No.1800 of 2021, pending on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2017, the

petitioner a party member of DMK conducted political meeting for

celebration of Ex.CM.Dr.Kalingar Karunanidhi's 94^th birthday

violating prohibiting orders. Hence a case has been registered

in Crime No.335 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 290,

291, 341 and 188 of IPC and the proceedings in S.T.C. No.1800 of

2021, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode

initiated against the petitioner.

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

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that

the right to freely assemble and right to freely express once

view are constitutionally protected rights under Part III and

their enjoyment can be only in proportional manner through a

fair and non-arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of

Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is the duty

of the Government to protect right of freedom of speech and

assemble which is essential in a democracy. According to Section

195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence

under Section 188 of IPC, unless the public servant has written

order from the authority. Further he submitted that the

petitioner or any other members never involved in any unlawful

assembly and activities, there is no evidence that the

petitioner or others wrongfully restrained anyone. Hence, he

sought quashing of proceedings.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the petitioner/Town Secretary of DMK political

party organised a public meeting in commemoration of their

leader's 94^th Birthday. On 24.06.2017, between 6.00 p.m to 9.00

pm held the meeting in Anthiyur to Bargur State Highway SH 175,

obstructing traffic in violation of permission granted by Deputy

Superintendent of Police, caused public disturbance and free

movement of traffic and there are specific allegations as

against the petitioner to proceed with the trial. Further, he

would submit that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence and

therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case.

Though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take

cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not

mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the

case. Further, the petitioner committed offences under Sections

290, 291 & 341 of IPC. During investigation, the respondent

police visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statements

of witness present in the scene of occurrence, prepared

Observation Mahazar, Rough Sketch, collected materials and filed

Charge Sheet listing L.W.1 to L.W.19, documents and materials.

Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed

for dismissal of the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing