BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.17039 & 17040 of 2025 Selvinkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Crime No.23 of 2024

2.Village Administrative Officer, Ponmanai - B Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari 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 C.C.No.318 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned final report in C.C.No.318 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram, filed against the petitioner and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 353, 290, 341, 297 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the petitioner, along with others, indulged in a protest without valid permission over the death of one Anitha, who had died in a road accident, prevented the authorities from removing the dead body, caused nuisance and disturbance to the general public, and also obstructed traffic, thereby committing the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the protest took place only because, in that locality, several persons had continuously died in road accidents caused by lorries transporting stones from the nearby mountains to Kerala, and the authorities had not taken any action in this regard; and that in any case, the petitioner, along with others, was exercising their 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, prevented the authorities to remove the dead body, caused obstruction to traffic and also caused 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 alleged by the prosecution.

6. As regards the offences under Sections 143 and 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 of