BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 25.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.17933 & 17935 of 2025

Ramnath @ Ramnath Ayyar, ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Inspector of Police,

Valliyoor Police Station,

Tirunelveli District, Crime No.191/2022.

2. Rajakumar, ... Respondents

PRAYER :- This Petition is filed under section 528 BNSS, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in STC No.178/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor quash the same as against the

petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned For Petitioner : Mr.C. Susikumar,

For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned final report filed for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 353 and 283 I.P.C.

2. The allegation in the final report 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.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, along with others, was exercising his right to assemble peacefully and had registered the protest, which could not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute the offences alleged. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 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

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent, per contra, would submit that the petitioner, along with others, participated in the protest and caused obstruction to traffic, besides causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public; and that they had no valid permission to engage in the protest and therefore, the impugned final report is justified.

5. The admitted fact is that the petitioner, along with others, engaged in a protest. The question is whether the assembly of persons and their protest on an issue would constitute the offences alleged by the prosecution.

6. The allegation, as stated earlier, is that the petitioner along with others had participated in a protest and thereby obstructed traffic. There is no allegation in the said F.I.R to attract the offence under Section 353 IPC. In order to attract Section 353 IPC, there must be an allegation that the petitioner assaulted or abused or used criminal force to any person, being a public servant, with an intent to prevent that person from discharging his duty. The essential ingredients of assault and use of criminal force are absent in the allegations.

7. 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 IPC, 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 ordina