BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4030 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.4346 of 2026

1.Dharani Murugesan

2.Manimaran 3.Veerabahu

4.Kaleeswaran Ramu ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by the Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.63 of 2023

2.M.Arul ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the case in S.T.C.No.1576 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, in Crime No. 63 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mahendra Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners seek for quashment of the impugned proceedings in S.T.C.No.1576 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, in Crime No.63 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the First Information Report is that the petitioners and other accused were protesting by unlawfully blocking the road without obtaining any prior permission from the respondent police, which was causing nuisance for the general public. On the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2023 and the same has culminated in laying a charge sheet in STC.NO.1576 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, for the alleged offences under Sections 143 and 341 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned FIR suffers from fundamental illegality and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and that the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the campaign was conducted peacefully and that right of expression 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.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific overt act attributable to any of the petitioners. The complaint does not disclose an unlawful assembly. To attract 143 of IPC, there must be an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC with a specific common object falling within the ambit of the said provision. However, in the instant case, the prosecution merely alleged that the petitioners assembled and staged protest in front of Government Medical College Hospital, Ramanathapuram. There is no material to show that the offence under Section 143 of IPC is made out as against the petitioners.

5. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that (i)

since no public was affected; (ii) no intention of causing danger to the public or (iii) obstruction to the public, the offence under Section 341 of IPC would not attract.

6. It is further argued that the allegations in the FIR 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.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that based on the complaint received, the respondent police registered the FIR. According to him, the petitioners have an effective remedy of participating in the investigation rather than seeking quashing at this stage.

8. I have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials placed on record. A careful reading of the FIR reveals that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. There is no allegation of violence, obstruction, public nuisance or disturbance.

9. Art