2026:MHC:208

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18.12.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23421 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.20301 & 20304 of 2025

1.Gopinath

2.Deenasenan

3.Senthil

4.Viknesh

5.Nallasivam

6.Sivasubramani @ Sivasubramanyan

7.Aravinthkarthick

8.Selvaraj ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Velayuthampalayam Police Station,

Karur District.

(Crime No.368 of 2022)

2.Mr.K.Nepolian,

Sub Inspector of Police,

Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur 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 S.T.C.No.1379 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and quash the same as illegal, as far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ramaguru For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

*****

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.1379 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows: (i) The first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.368 of

2022 for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 283 and 285 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as 'IPC']. After completion of the enquiry, the first respondent filed the final report in S.T.C.No.1379 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, for the very same offences. A total of ten persons have been named as accused in the said crime number. The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 in the final report.

(ii) The final report has been filed alleging that the petitioners, who belong to a political party, along with two others, participated in a protest which, according to the prosecution, was unlawful, against the State Government regarding the hike in milk rates. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking to quash the same.

3. The petitioners contend that the impugned final report 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.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned final report does not disclose any specific overt act attributable to any of the petitioners. The final report 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 or rashly/negligently endangered life by fire/combustible material or failed to take proper precautions. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 143, 283 and 285 of IPC are not made out.

5. It is further argued that the allegations in the impugned final report 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.

6. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

Balasubramanian and Others vs. State and Others¹, Crl.O.P.(MD)

No.11533 of 2023; Jeevarathinam and Others vs State represented by Inspector of Police and Another, 2018 (2) MLJ (Crl) 606, Crl.O.P.No.16707 of 2021; and Javed Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 Supreme Court Cases 187

7. These judgments reiterate that peacef