ORDER

The petitioners, who are facing trail in S.T.C.No.201 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2) of the BNS, have filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2025 at about 10.30 a.m., on the Bhavani-Thoppur National Highway (NH-544), opposite to Bhavani Mani Hospital, the petitioners, along with others, assembled and staged a protest demanding speedy completion of the road repair works and also obstructed the free movement of traffic on the National Highway. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that now investigation has been completed and a final report has been filed citing eight witnesses. According to him, the petitioners obstructed the free movement of traffic in the National Highway near Bhavani Mani Hospital. Despite warnings issued by the Police, they had continued their protest, thereby causing obstruction to vehicular movement.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had merely participated in a peaceful public demonstration raising genuine grievances to relating the poor condition of the road and the public safety. The protest was democratic in nature and is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS are wholly absent in the present case. He further submitted that the alleged protest had not caused any obstruction to the public movement or inconvenience to any one of the public.

5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submitted that the petitioners had assembled as a group, raised demands for restoration of the road, removal of potholes and relaying of the damaged road. After staging the demonstration, they peacefully dispersed from the place.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and perusal of materials, it is seen that the de facto complainant, who is an Engineer connected with road project, along with his associates and Police officials, have been cited as witnesses. In this case admittedly no independent witness or any public has been examined to show that there was obstruction of traffic movement of vehicle. Further, no person from the Bhavani Mani Hospital, which is near the protest place, was called and enquired about the obstruction of traffic movement.

7. The admitted position is that Bhavani-Thoppur National Highway, NH-544 was in a damaged condition with several potholes, causing hardship to road users and damage to the vehicles. Therefore, the local residents held a protest and later dispersed peacefully. Mere participation in a peaceful democratic protest cannot, by itself, be construed as an unlawful act attracting criminal liability. Moreover, no road user or vehicle owner has come forward with any complaint alleging that he or she suffered inconvenience or loss on account of the protest.

8. This Court in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and another reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606 has issued certain guidelines regarding the registration and prosecution of cases arising out of public protests and demonstrations, which reads as follows:

"25.In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned:

a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.

b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC.

c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated