BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.12143 and 12145 of 2025

1.Dhanasekaran

2.Ramadoss

3.Paramasivam

4.Pavunraj

5.Darmu Sekar @ Rajasekar

6.Rajasekar ...Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy City.

(Crime No.490 of 2018) ...1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.Ramesh The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy City. ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No. 1127 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Trichy and quash the same in so far as above petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Seeking quashment of final report in C.C.No.1127 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Trichy, filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 290 of IPC and Section 41 of TN City Police Act, 1888, this criminal original petition is filed.

2. Notice to the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with, since no adverse order is passed against the 2^nd respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2018 at about

12.30 p.m, one Anbalagan and 109 others have gathered in Trichy Central Bus Stand, Periyar Statute, as a group and had indulged in protest against the arrest of the leader of a political party, disturbing the general public and interrupting the traffic. On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, the first respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.490 of 2018 for the alleged offences under Sections

143, 290 of IPC and Section 41 of TN City Police Act.

4. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.1127 of 2019 for the offences under Sections

143, 290 of IPC and Section 41 of TN City Police Act.

5. The learned counsel for 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.

6. 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 143 of IPC is not maintainable.

7. 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.

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

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

10. Section 143 IPC requires a prima facie indication that the person was a member of an “unlawful assembly” as defined, i.e., an assembly with a common object falling within Section 141 IPC. In a protest-related FIR, merely stating that a group assembled, without particulars of common object vis-à-vis each accu