BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 18.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP(MD). No.20502 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.17383 and 17386 of 2025

1.Muthuraj ... 1^st Petitioner / A62 2.Sankar ... 2^nd Petitioner / A24 3.Gayathri ... 3^rd Petitioner / A58 Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Devarkulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

Crime No.226 of 2024. ... 1^st respondent/Complainant

2.Mr.Nanjil Prithviraj Sub-Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thalayuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... 2^nd respondent /Defacto Complainant PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in PRC No.373 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Tirunelveli and quash the same insofar as these petitioners/Accused Nos.62, 24 and 58 are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mrs.N.Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi (for R1)

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petition seeks to quash the impugned final report in PRC No.

323 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 143, 109, 291, 341, 294(b), 353, 323, 506(ii), 120B, 283 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 [hereinafter referred to as 'the TNPPDL Act'].

2. The gist of the allegations is that on 08.05.2024, when a group of persons were protesting under the leadership of one Isakki Raja and demanding appointment of persons of a particular community in the Devarkulam Police Station, they were arrested; and that the petitioners along with 59 others had obstructed the van in which they were taken and caused damage to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, besides abusing the police officials and causing hurt to them. The petitioners are arrayed as A62, A24 and A58 respectively.

3 (i). The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners only indulged in a protest and even assuming that they had obstructed public servants in performing their duty, they will be liable only for the offence under Section 186 of the IPC and none of the offences alleged are made out and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13698 in support of her submissions.

(ii). The learned counsel would further submit that there is no material in the impugned final report to suggest that the petitioners had caused damage to a van for the value of Rs.5,000/- and that no assessment or valuation was obtained from any competent officer and therefore would submit that the impugned prosecution is an abuse of process of law.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) per contra would submit that the petitioners have indulged in illegal acts and a question as to whether they had committed the aforesaid offences, cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition and further, the prosecution has to be given an opportunity to prove the damage caused to the private vehicle and merely because they have not obtained any valuation, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.

5. Admittedly the petitioners indulged in a protest. They had obstructed the public servants in the performance of their duty. The allegations at best would suggest the commission of the offence under Section 186 of the IPC. The question is whether any of the offences charged against the petitioners are made out. In Jeevanandam's case [cited supra] which related to a protest without valid permission and when the accused had filed quash petition of the final report filed for the offences under Sections 143 and 341 of IPC, this Court had held as follows:

''42. In all the cases, the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an or