BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.17454 of 2025 Vignesh ... Petitioner Vs.

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

(Crime No.35 of 2017)

2.Mr.Alaguraj Sub-Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.63 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned final report in P.R.C.No.63 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, filed by the first respondent against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 341 & 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

2. The allegation in the final report is that the petitioners, along with others, indulged in a protest without valid permission and caused nuisance and disturbance to the general public, besides causing obstruction to traffic.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner, along with others, was exercising his right to assemble peacefully, which could not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute the offences alleged. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevanandham and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) 606 in support of his submissions.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent police, per contra, would submit that the petitioner, along with others, participated in an unauthorised protest and caused obstruction to traffic, besides causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public, and therefore, the impugned final report is justified.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner, along with others, participated in a protest. The question is whether such an act would constitute the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 341 & 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

6. As regards the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188 &

341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the case of Jeevanandham referred to 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, 341 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, this Court had held as follows:

32.Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos. 12684, 15710 and 15709 of 2018 In all these cases, a Final Report has been filed for an offence under Section 143, 341 and 188 of IPC.

A Final Report cannot be filed for an offence under Section 188 of IPC, and the Court below ought not to have been taken cognizance. In view of the above discussion, the Final Report insofar as an offence under Section 188 IPC is concerned is hereby quashed. Insofar as the offence under Section 143 IPC is concerned, the allegation is that the assembly had raised slogans demanding for the rights of the farmers, and expressed opposition not to establish a godown and this according to the Police was done, when there was a prohibitory order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861. In the considered view of this Court, this will not constitute an offence under Section 143 of IPC.

2.In all the cases, the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen. If such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Se