SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Rajapandiyan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 02/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

and

CRL MP(MD)Nos.20626 and 20629 of 2025

1. Rajapandiyan

2. Alagupandi,

3. Raja

4. Seenivasakan

5. Ramanathan

6. Pandi

7. Selvakumar 8. Prabakaran 9. Ramasamy 10. Ilavarasan

11. Karthikraja

12. Veerapathiran

13. Vellaichamy

14. Seemaichamy

15. Vijayaragunathan

16. Arumugam 17. Seenivasan

18. Govindaraj

19. Kartheeswari

20. Jeevarathinam

21. Ramalingam

22. Pandi

23. Kamalakannan

24. Sundaramoorthy

25. Murugapandi

26. Ganesan

27. Tamilmani

28. Janarthanan

29. Boominathan

30. Dhanaraj

31. Vigneshpandi

32. Arumugam

33. Balamurugan

34. Murugan 35. Sakkaiah

36. Vellaichamy

37. Muthu

38. Veluthevar

39. Balamurugan

40. Muthirulan 41. Arumugam

42. Gothandam

43. Palchamy ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

In Crime No.82 of 2025).

2. A.Suresh, S/o.Not Known Sub Inspector of Police, Kariapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-

To Call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Charge Sheet in STC No.466/2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti and quash the same and to allow this petition.

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Karthigaivel, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in STC No.

466/2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2. The FIR was registered on 17.03.2025 alleging that on the same day, at about 05.00 p.m., the petitioners and other accused persons held a demonstration without prior permission, against the arrest of a State Leader of a political party near the Kariyapatti Bus Stand. On the basis of the complaint given by a police official, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.82 of 2025 for the alleged offences under Sections

189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kariapatti, and the same was taken on file as S.T.C.No.466 of 2025.

4. The petitioners contend that the impugned charge sheet 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.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 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS, 2023, are not disclosed.

6. It is further argued that the allegations in the Charge sheet 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.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner and others had assembled without permission, blocked a public road, and caused inconvenience, and therefore, the prosecution is justified. It was contended that the truthfulness of the allegations can be tested only during trial.

8. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration:

9. Whether the continuation of proceedings in S.T.C.No.4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top