BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21388 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD)No.21388 of 2025

1.Kalanithimaran ... Accused No.2 2.Sathishkumar ... Accused No.3 3.Rajamathan ... Accused No.4 4.Hari ... Accused No.5 5.Manika Moorthi ... Accused No.8

6.Balamurugan ... Accused No.10

7.Prasanth ... Accused No.12 /

Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, rep. through The Sub Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.428 of 2025) ... Respondent /

Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the First Information Report in crime No.428 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, and quash the same, in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.428 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:

2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.428 of

2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 189, 389, 5 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 145, 151 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code. A total of 85 persons have been named as accused in the said crime number. The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.82 to 85, 10 and 812, 828, 283, 848, 586, 8, 10 and 812 in the said FIR.

3. The FIR was registered on 10.08.2020 alleging that the petitioners, who belong to Hindu Munnani, had participated in a protest which, according to the prosecution, was unlawful. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the petitioners have approached this Court with the present petition seeking to quash the same.

4. The petitioners contend that the impugned FIR suffers from fundamental illegality and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioners submit that the alleged protest was conducted peacefully and that peaceful expression of opinion is a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is their case that expressing one’s views in a democratic nation cannot be criminalised unless the act satisfies the ingredients of a penal provision.

5. It is further contended that on the very same day, at the same venue, the respondent police granted permission to one Religious Harmony Group to conduct their protest. However, when the petitioners requested similar permission, the same was arbitrarily denied without any justification. This selective permission, according to the petitioners, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific overt act attributable to any of the petitioners. The complaint does not whisper any material to show that the petitioners indulged in violence, caused disturbance, annoyance or obstruction to any public authority or to the general public. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 145, 151 and

283 IPC are not disclosed.

7. It is further argued that the allegations in the FIR are vague, sweeping and intended only to portray a peaceful assembly as illegal. Criminal law cannot be invoked to curtail peaceful expression, which is the bedrock of democratic governance.

8. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

Balasubramanian and Others vs. State and Others, MANU/TN/4515/203 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11533 of 2023; Jeevarathinam and Others vs.

State represented by Inspector of Police and Another, 2018 (2) MLJ (Crl) 606 Crl.O.P.No.16707 of 2021; Javed Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 Supreme Court 187

9. These judgments reiterat