IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.1181 of 2022

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.442 & 443 of 2022

1.Vaiko

2.Mallai C.A.Sathya

3.S.Jeevan

...Petitioners

Vs.

1. State by. its,

The Inspector of Police (Law and Order),

B1 North Beach Police Station,

Chennai. (Crime No.1120/2017).

2. Madasamy,

The Inspector of Police,

B1 North Police Station,

Chennai.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records

pertaining to the case in C.C.No.15 of 2020 on the file of the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of

Criminl Cases Related to Elected M.P's and M.L.A's of Tamil

Nadu, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioners:

Mr.R.Priyakumar

For R1

:

Mr.E.Raj Thilak,

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.15 of 2020, on the file of the Assistant

Sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminl

Cases Related to Elected M.P's and M.L.A's of Tamil Nadu,

Chennai.

2.The gist of the case is that on 10.08.2017, at about 11.30

a.m., the petitioners along with others, who belong to MDMK

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

Political party held protest at Narayanappan Street, North

Beach, Chennai against NEET exam. On receiving information, the

2^nd respondent Police, the Inspector of Police along with other

Police personnels had gone to the scene of occurrence and asked

the protesters to disperse, but they refused to do so and caused

disturbance to the public and free movement of vehicles.

Further, the protesters attempt to burn effigy, hence, the 1^st

respondent Police arrested and took them to marriage hall, since

there was several persons. An FIR in Crime No.1120 of 2017 was

registered, for offence under Sections 147, 285 and 290 IPC,

after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before

the Court and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.15 of 2020,

listing nine witnesses as LW1 to LW9.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

offence under Section 147 IPC is not made out, since there was

use of fire during protest. Holding a protest cannot

automatically be termed as unlawful assembly. The protest is a

accepted one in the democratic state. He further submitted that

during the protest, there have been no disturbance to public and

free movement of vehicles. During investigation, none of the

public witness was examined by the 1^st respondent Police in this

case. To attract the offence under Section 285 IPC, any

material to show there was usage of fire during protest. From

the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, there is no mention of

usage of fire or any combustible material or traces of any burnt

effigy. The offence under Section 290 IPC is also not attracted

in this case, since there is nothing to show any nuisance to the

public and no witness was examined to that effect. Thus, the

petitioner and the other accused are falsely implicated in this

case for political reason as a political vendetta. The protest

was held to remind the in action of the Government with regard

to NEET exam.

4.He further submitted that in this case, LW1 to LW6, LW9

are all Police personnels attached to the 1^st respondent Police

Station. LW7 and LW8 are vendors in that local area, who were

shown as witnesses for Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. In

this case, LW9 is the complainant as well as the Investigating

Officer. The complainant and the investigating officer should

not be one and the same person, unless in exceptional cases,

where there is no prejudice caused to the accused. In this

case, the prejudice against the accused is very much there,

since the witnesses examined are all Police personnels. In

support of this point, the