Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
N. Thalavai Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 3802 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar
For the Respondents: Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor
The court upheld the ability to quash FIRs when facts align with established precedents on maintaining public order and lawful assembly violations.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the authority to quash FIRs. In this case, the petitioners sought to quash an FIR for unlawful assembly and campaign violations. The prosecution contended that the petitioners disrupted public order. The Court found parallels in previous judgments that supported the quashing of such FIRs. The primary issue was whether the FIR was maintainable under existing statutes. It was determined that further proceedings would not serve a useful purpose, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of petition to quash fir for unlawful assembly. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments referencing similar cases supporting petitioners. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observation aligning with previous decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's quashing of the fir. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 124 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2024, the petitioners and others, who belong to a political party, without obtaining any prior permission, unlawfully assembled and carried out an election campaign by violating the election code of conduct, thereby causing disturbance to the public. Consequently, the aforesaid case in Crime No.124 of 2024 was registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 143, 341 & 188 IPC, which is now sought to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the cases in Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District reported in (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and others (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019), in which the proceedings were quashed. Hence, he prayed to quash the FIR pending against the petitioners.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police endorsed the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts of the instant case are akin to the facts in the aforesaid two cases.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the above said decisions would apply on all fours to the present case and that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the FIR pending and is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the FIR registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 124 of 2024, on the file of the 1st respondent police, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
