BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22028 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.18956 of 2025

1. Thiagarajan

2. Mukile Iniyan @ K.Ramalingam

3. Pari @ Tamil iniyan

4. Vellammal

5. Ragunathan @ Rajaragunathan

6. Aruntamil .... Petitioners /

Accused No.16,32,33,34,39 & 46

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep by.

The Inspector of Police,

Inamkulathur Police Station,

Tiruchirapalli District

Crime No.39 of 2017. ... Respondent / Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned FIR in Crime No. 39 of 2017 dated 21.05.2017 on the file of respondent police and

quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr. P.Edin Brough For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.39 of 2017 registered for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 IPC, corresponding to Sections 189(2) and 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.05.2017, a group of 46 persons, including seven women of the Tamil Agriculturists Society, under the guidance of one Chinathurai, the Secretary of the said Society, had assembled, taken out a procession, raised slogans and attempted to conduct a rail roko agitation, thereby allegedly violating the instructions issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Geyapuram Circle.

3. As a result, the respondent police registered the impugned FIR against the petitioners and others for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the continuation of the proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

4. The petitioners contend that the allegations are wholly vague and omnibus, without any specific overt act attributed to any of them. They assert that the agitation was a peaceful protest regarding a common agricultural issue, and the FIR has been broadly registered against all participants without individualised allegations.

5. It is further submitted that several petitioners are senior citizens, students, and individuals preparing for their careers. The registration of the FIR has severely affected their livelihood, future prospects, and reputation.

6. The petitioners contend that the right to assemble peacefully and protest is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. The FIR, devoid of specific allegations of violence or unlawful activity, constitutes an abuse of process of law.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that the petitioners had assembled without permission, attempted to conduct a rail roko agitation, and disobeyed the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, the FIR was lodged to maintain public order.

Points for Consideration:

8. The principal issue for consideration is whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners for participating in a peaceful protest, without any specific overt act or allegation of violence, amounts to abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

Analysis:

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

10. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The Supreme Court has consistently held that peaceful protest is the foundation of a vibrant democracy.

11. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324, it was observed that peaceful protests are essential to political and democratic participation.

12. In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re², the Supreme Court held that the State must respect peaceful assembly and cannot, by mere apprehension, curb constitutional freedoms.

13. The right to protest, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) to ensu