BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P(MD).No.2930 of 2026 Ganesa Perumal, ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep Sub Inspector of Police, Vickramasingapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

Crime No.326/2022.. ... Respondent PRAYER :- To call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in STC No.682/2025 dated 18.06.2025 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram and Quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.682/2025 dated 18.06.2025 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram , which was filed for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 290 and 291 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the First Information Report is that the petitioner 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, pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report and the same was taken on file in STC No.682/2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambasamudram

3. The petitioner contend that the impugned FIR suffers from fundamental illegality and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioner submit 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 petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the said occurrence and he did not waylay the buses and caused any public nuisance. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific overt act attributable to the petitioner and he was not associated with the unlawful assembly. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 143 of IPC is not maintainable.

5. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 BNS would not attract.

6. Further, he would submit that there was no proof to show that the petitioner has caused public nuisance in the alleged scene of occurrence and that public were affected. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 290 of BNS also.

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)

appearing for the respondent police submitted that based on the complaint given by the Inspector of Police, the respondent police registered the FIR. According to him, the petitioner has an effective remedy of participating in the investigation rather than seeking quashing of FIR at this stage.

9. 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 petitioner. There is no allegation of violence, obstruction, public nuisance or disturbance.

10. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly without arms. These rights can be restricted only by reasonable restrictions provided by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held