SIMIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Protests are essential for an effective democracy as they are the external manifestations of democratic sentience. Peaceful protests aid in strengthening such governance rather than weakening it. Petitioners marked their protests by waving black flags on a matter that they perceived to be unjust. The mode of protests adopted by the petitioners has entangled them in a criminal prosecution. They challenge the prosecution initiated against them in this proceeding under sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(2.) Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.403 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur. The prosecution alleges that the accused had, on 9/4/2017, in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and with the intention to defame the Chief Minister, waved a black flag at the convoy of the Chief Minister, and when the police personnel tried to restrain them from proceeding towards the convoy, the accused used criminal force by pushing the police and thereby committed the offences under Sec. 283, 188, 500 and 353 r/w sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

(3.) Sri. M. Vivek, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the prosecution allegations do not make out any of the offences alleged. It was submitted that for taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 188 IPC, the authority who issued the order must file the complaint as stipulated in Sec. 195(2) Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that the offence of defamation cannot be initiated on the basis of a police report, and therefore, those two Sec. are not attracted at all. It was further submitted that as uncontroverted allegations do not indicate that any obstruction was caused in any public way, Sec. 283 IPC is also not attracted. Further, according to the learned Counsel, Sec. 353 IPC is also not attracted, as the accused did not use any force, much less any criminal force, and that the duty of the Police Officers was never intercepted, as is evident from the prosecution allegations itself. The learned Counsel submitted that no injury was caused to any police officer, and their duty was not at all deterred even according to the final report and the provision has been included without any basis. According to the learned counsel, proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court.