BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.MP(MD)No.16432 of 2025

1.Bose

2.Alagu Sarvanakumar @ Saravanan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul City.

(Cr.No.722 of 2020) ...Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.722 of 2020 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul pending disposal of the above quash petition and in so far as the petitioners are concerned, quash the same and allow this Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.722 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent, which was registered for the offences under Section 143, 188 and 269 of IPC.

2. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners, along with others, indulged in a protest without valid permission during the COVID-19 pandemic period and caused nuisance and disturbance to the general public, besides causing obstruction to traffic and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, along with others, was exercising his right to assemble peacefully, which could not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute the offences alleged. He would rely upon the judgment 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 SCC OnLine Mad 13698 in support of his submissions.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the petitioners, along with others, participated in an unauthorised protest and caused obstruction to traffic, besides causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public;

and therefore, the impugned FIR is justified.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners, along with others, participated in a protest. The question is whether such an act would constitute the offences alleged by the prosecution.

6. 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 and

188 of IPC, this Court had held as follows:

" 35 . Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11836 of 2018:-

In this case, the Final Report has been filed only for an offence under Section 143 of Cr.P.C and the Court below has taken cognizance of the Final Report. A reading of the allegations made in the Final Report would show that a group of persons were agitating for non supply of the essential commodities in a ration shop. In this case, the FIR was registered under Section 143 and 188 of IPC. The Final Report was filed for an offence under Section 143 of IPC. Insofar as the offence under Section 143 of IPC is concerned, the concerned Police Officer has quoted Section 30(2) of the Police Act, and therefore, has straight away proceeded to register an FIR under Section 143 of IPC. As stated above, a mere violation of the so-called promulgation under Section 30(2) of the Police Act will not make out an offence under Section 143 of IPC by straight away declaring an assembly of persons to be an unlawful assembly. The power under Section 30(2) of the Police Act is merely regulatory in nature. In fact, Section 32 of the Police Act itself provides for a penalty for disobeying an order issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act with a punishment of a fine not exceeding 200 rupees, where as an offence under Section 143 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months. Therefore, a violation of the