BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5303 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4145 of 2024 Arif Batsha @ Arief Batcha .. Petitioner/Accused No.

Vs.

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli, TamilNadu - 627 005. (Crime no.473/2023)

2.Annantha Ramakrishnan .... Respondent / complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in Cr.No.473/2023 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raja Mohamed For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor For R-2 : No appearance

ORDER

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

2. The power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly.

At the same time, when the uncontroverted allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged, and when the prosecution, as against the petitioner, rests on vague and omnibus allegations bereft of particulars, this Court is not powerless to interdict such proceedings at the threshold.

3. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.473 of 2023 dated 23.07.2023 on the file of the respondent police, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 290 and 341 of IPC, 1860 and Section 41(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888.

Factual Matrix:

4. The prosecution case, in substance, is that an alleged protest/demonstration was conducted in the aftermath of a search stated to have been conducted by an NIA officer in relation to a person said to be connected with SDPI, namely one Mubaraq, District Secretary, and that the protest was allegedly directed against the officials.

5. In the said occurrence, the petitioner has been arrayed along with several others. It is represented that a total of 51 persons have been shown as accused. The petitioner asserts that he is a practising advocate, that he is handling cases pertaining to members of the concerned political organisation, and that he went to the spot only for the purpose of rendering legal assistance and according to him, he did not participate in any unlawful assembly or obstruction and has been falsely implicated. This Court, on an earlier date, granted an interim order of stay on 05.04.2024.

Case of the prosecution:

6. The FIR alleges, in broad terms, that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, engaged in conduct attracting public nuisance, and caused obstruction to passers-by/traffic/public movement, besides allegedly contravening the relevant provision of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888. The FIR, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, does not disclose any specific overt act attributed to him apart from his alleged presence in the protest.

Grounds urged for quash:

7. The petitioner, through learned counsel, contends as follows:

The petitioner did not participate in the protest and no overt act is attributed to him. The FIR contains omnibus allegations against a large group (51 accused) without particulars as to the petitioner’s role, words, acts, or conduct. Mere presence at or near the place of occurrence, particularly in the capacity of a practising advocate extending legal assistance, cannot constitute the ingredients of offences under Sections 143, 290 or 341 IPC.

Continuation of the investigation/prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of process.

Submissions:

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits, in sum and substance, that the protest was not a welfare protest, and it was directed against officials in connection with an NIA-related sear