BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20406 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.17276 of 2025 Rajendran ... Petitioner/ Accused No.4 Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.786 of 2020) ... Respondent / Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.786 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police and quash the same as illegal insofar as this petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Banumathy For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.786 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent, which was registered for the offences under Section 143, 341, 269, 270 of IPC and Section

51(b) of Disaster Management Act.

2. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner, along with others, indulged in a protest without valid permission and caused nuisance and disturbance to the general public, besides causing obstruction to traffic, thereby violating the Government Orders with regard to social distancing norms.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 SCC OnLine Mad 13698 in support of his submissions.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, 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 FIR is justified.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner, along with others, participated in a protest.

The question is whether such an act would constitute the offences alleged by the prosecution.

6. 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 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 ordinary citizen. If such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and filing a Final Report for the very same offence, no democratic dissent can ever be shown by the citizens and such prohibition will amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. A reading of the Final Report also does not make out an offence under Section 341 of IPC since any form of an agitation, will necessarily cause some hindrance to the movement of the general public for sometime. That by itself, does not constitute an offence of a wrongful restraint. ''

7. This Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of Mohamad Aslam and others Vs. State and another in Crl.O.P.No.5199 of 2021 dated 28.03.2023, had quashed the final report by relying upon the order of this Court in the case of Srinath Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Another, reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 13943. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“10. As regards offences under Section 270 and 271 of the IPC, Section 2 and 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Managerment Act, this Court had already quashed similar complaints. This Court in the Judgement reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 13943 – Srinath Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Another, had qua