The Court affirmed the right to peaceful protest, stating that mere assembly does not constitute an unlawful assembly without evidence of violence or obstruction.

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C. No.2166 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, wherein the petitioners have been charged under Sections

189(2) and 126(2) of BNS.

2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners along with others, had assembled and shown black flags against the opening of the new market. They have been charged with the offences of unlawful assembly and blocking the road. The first accused in the present case had filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22770 of 2025, seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C. No.2166 of 2025. This Court, by order dated 11.12.2025, quashed the charge sheet as against the first accused. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

''16. For attracting Section 189(2) of BNS, the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object involving criminal force or violence. The FIR itself does not disclose any act of violence, force, or intimidation. Mere assembly or expression of dissent, in the absence of criminal force, would not constitute an unlawful assembly.

17. Similarly, Section 126(2) of BNS requires proof of obstruction or danger caused on a public way. Except for a bald allegation made by the complainant police official, there is no material to show actual obstruction, inconvenience, or danger to the public. No independent witness or member of the public has complained about the alleged protest.

18. Peaceful protest and expression of dissent are integral to a democratic polity and are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, subject to reasonable restrictions. Criminal prosecution cannot be used as a tool to suppress lawful dissent.

19. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that when the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence and when the continuation of proceedings would only result in harassment of the accused, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court can and ought to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law.

20. In the present case, the materials on record do not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The prosecution appears to be inherently improbable and unsupported by legally acceptable evidence.

21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of proceedings in S.T.C.No. 2166 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.''

3. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the petitioners herein stand on the same footing as the first accused, who was the petitioner in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.22770 of 2025.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C. No.2166 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

5. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.