M.R.MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No. 595 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, Dindigul District and quash the same.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 23/1/2017 at about 13.15 hours, when the defacto complainant was on a regular patrol found that the petitioner along with other accused persons as mentioned in FIR joined together and involved in a Dharna with out permission in front of the Dindigul Post Office condemning the attack on the persons involved in Jalikkatu Dharna in Madurai and Chennai. Hence, the second respondent herein preferred a complaint before the first respondent police and a case has been registered against the petitioner and 43 others for the offence under Ss. 143, 188 and 341 of IPC. The same was take on file in C.C.No.595 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely express once view or constitutionally protected rights under Part III and their enjoyment can be only in proportional manner through a fair and non-arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assemble that is so essential to a democracy. According to Sec. 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Sec. 188 of IPC, unless the public servant has written order from the authority. Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioner and others. When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, as against the petitioner and others.