Right to protest and dissent protected; no offence without evidence of harm, prohibitory orders, or independent witnesses.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.S.Suganthan For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER The petitioners, who are accused in FIR in Crime No.399 of 2025 for offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) & 291 BNS on the file of the 1^st respondent Police, have filed the Quash Petition.

2.Case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent, Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk Office lodged a complaint on 24.06.2025 stating that the petitioners herein along with 400 persons under the leadership and instructions of the 1^st petitioner assembled together in front of the Office of Kangeyam-Vellakovil Water Conservation Association, Bhagavathipalayam on Tiruchirapalli-Coimbatore National Highways opposite to Divya Mahal and put up a steel sheet held in the private land belonging to the Association for the purpose of holding demonstration in the form of protest agitating the inaction on the part of the Government for not considering the demands of the farmers and as a consequential act of rejection of their request by the Police to conduct a siege demonstration at the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Pollachi PAP Project one weeks prior to the occurrence. Further the petitioners created fear among the public with cows and horses causing disruption to traffic and the public. Despite the petitioners were repeatedly informed that they were not allowed to protest and should disperse, they continued their protest. On complaint of the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent Police arrested the protesters and registered a case in Crime No.399 of 2025 for offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) & 291 BNS.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the allegations in the final report do not constitute the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) & 291 BNS. The petitioners assembled together in front of the Office of Kangeyam-Vellakovil Water Conservation Association, Bhagavathipalayam on Tiruchirapalli-Coimbatore National Highways and put up a steel sheet held in the private land belonging to the Association for the purpose of holding demonstration in the form of protest agitating the inaction on the part of the Government for not considering the demands of the farmers and as a consequential act of rejection of their request by the Police to conduct a siege demonstration at the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Pollachi PAP Project one weeks prior to the occurrence. He further submitted that there is absolutely no material to indicate that the petitioners had any common intention to commit an offence or to create a law and order problem as alleged. Further the allegation of obstruction to traffic is vague since there was no specific instance of wrongful restraint and no complaint from any public. In the absence of any such material, the offence under Section 126(2) BNS is not made out. The ingredients of offence under Section 291 BNS not attracted since the complaint contains only bald and general statements without any supporting material, independent witnesses or evidence of actual harm or inconvenience caused to the public at large. In this case, no private person cited as witness, hence, it is highly improbable that no public witness was present in the place of occurrence and no reason has been given for non examination of public witnesses.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing to show that on the date of occurrence, there was any prohibitory order in force and whether that order was communicated in the prescribed manner is also not known. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court in the cases of “Madhan Mohan Versus The State and