BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3336 and 3337 of 2025

1. Rajappa

2. A.S. Kannappan

3. Bilal Hussain

4. Vaigai Mohamed Sithik

5. Ravisankar

6. Shankar Pandian

7. Anbalagan

8. Sundararajan

9. Senthil Kumar

10. Sabarishwaran

11. Selvam

12. Balamurugan

13. Radhakrishnan

14. Vijayakumar 15. G. Nadarajan

16. S. Karuppaiah

17. P. Nagaraj

18. Sundarrajan

19. Sivakumar

20. Soosairobort

21. Sadhik Batcha

22. Ilangovan ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul District.

2. Rajendran, Special Sub Inspector of Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. Rajendran, Special Sub Inspector of Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No. 518 of 2016 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, for alleged offences Under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 and 285 of IPC and quash the same as so far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Aruljenifer, For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 518 of 2016 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, as against the petitioners.

2.The prosecution case is that all the accused formed unlawful assembly on 06.04.2016 at about 10.30 hours near Gokul Medicals, Scheme Road, Dindigul, blocked the road and made protest against Vaiko and burnt the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made by him against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi, thereby, the second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and others before the first respondent and based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation as against the petitioner is that without any permission the petitioners have conducted protest and burnt the effigy as against the deformation speech made by Vai Gopalasamy as against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi. In fact, the second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and others before the first respondent. Based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent without conducting proper investigation, filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and the trial Court also without any prima facie material, taken the final report on file in C.C.NO.518 of 2016. There are no any specific overt act against the petitioners and no any public lodged any complaint against the petitioners and there are no ingredients to attract the alleged offences. There is a bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC and no any order has been promulgated by the competent authority and thereby, the offence under Section 188 of IPC would not attract. There are no averments to constitute the offence under Section 143 of IPC to attract the unlawful assembly and there is no material that these petitioners restrained anybody from proceeding in the public road. There are no materials to constitute the offence under Section 285 of IPC that the petitioners dealt with fire or any combustible material so as to endanger the human life. Therefore, the present case has been foisted as against the petitioners. Hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4.The learned