Advocates:
['M/S P M DURAISWAMY', '', 'K VIGNESH KARTHICK', 'K SADASIVAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TAKES NOTICE', '', 'FOR R', 'NOTICE SENT SERVICE AWAITED', 'ON R', 'PRIVATE NOTICE SERVED ON R', 'M RAJAPRAKESH', 'ERODE', 'NOTICE SERVED ON R', 'R RAJAPRAKASH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.12978 of 2017

and Crl.M.P.No.8440 of 2017

1. Viswalingasamy

2. Mahesh Kumar

3. Ragupathi

4. Karuppusamy

5. Kannan

6. Mahesh

7. Chandrasekar

8. Murugasamy

9. Manthiri

10.Vasanth

11.Soorya

12.Kuppusamy

13.Gowthaman

14.Theenadhayalan

15.Ramasamy

16.Sethuraman

17.Ravikumar

18.Nachimuthu

19.Chandrasekar

20.Sampath Kumar

21.Karunanithi

22.Thirumoorthi

23.Sivasamy

24.Krishnakumar

25.Senthilkumar

26.Ayyasamy

27.Kuppusamy

28.Thangaraj

29.Jeganathan

30.Suresh

31.Rajendran

32.Mahesh

33.Gnanasundar

34.Davit

35.Sasi @ Kailashamoorthi

36.Albert

37.Arun

38.Karthik

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

39.Robert

40.Michel

41.Kalai Selvi

42.Pushpa

43.Gandhimathi

44.Thangaselvi

45.Gomathi

46.Sairabanu

47.Eswari

48.Mani

49.Amsaveni

50.Rajeshwari

51.Kanagammal

52.Sangeetha

53.Maheshwari

54.Chitra

55.Rukmani

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police,

Uthukuli Police Station,

Tirupur,

(Crime No.164/2017)

2.Rajaprakash

.. Respondents

Prayer :

This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners

in P.R.C.No.1/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Avinashi, Tirupur District.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.M.Duraisamy

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar for

Public Prosecutor for R1

No appearance for R2.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash

the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners in

P.R.C.No.1/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Avinashi, Tirupur District.

2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

false case has been registered against the petitioners herein by

the 1^st respondent Police based on the complaint given by the

defacto complainant alleging that they formed an unlawful

assembly armed with stones and sticks in front of the wine shop

and attacked a shed attached to the wine shop and pulled down

the asbestos sheets. It is further alleged that the properties

belonging to the bar attached to the wine shop were also

damaged stated to be worth a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. On

receipt of the complaint from the 2^nd respondent herein at about

01.30 p.m. on 26.04.2017, the first respondent Police registered

a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Sections 143,147,148,341,283,448 and 188 of IPC and Section 3 of

Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act,

1992, against which the present Quash Petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent

Police submitted that in this case, the complaint has been

lodged by the 2^nd respondent, stating that a protest had been

held by the petitioners against the prohibitory order passed by

the Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Women Police Station. He

further submitted that the petitioners were not granted any

permission to hold protest and hence, the complaint came to be

registered and investigation is in progress.

5.This Court considered the rival submissions and

perused the materials available on record.

6. In State of Haryana – Vs – Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded the

circumstances and the situations in which the inherent power u/s

482 should be invoked for quashment and for better appreciation,

the relevant portion is extracted hereunder :-

“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the following categories of cases are given by

way of illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process

of any Court or otherwis