MUTHUKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime Nos. 37 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Ss. 143, 269, 270, 283, 290 and 341 IPC and Sec. 71(xi) and 73 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and Sec. 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 on the file of the respondent police on the allegation that on 30/1/2021, at about 11.15 hours, when the de facto complainant the second respondent herein, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nesamani Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District, alongwith other police officials, was on patrol duty at DVD Colony Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the petitioner, without any prior permission and without following the pandemic protocol restrictions, had participated in the protest made by a group of people headed by Mr.Suresh Rajan, Member of Legislative Assembly, Nagercoil (DMK party) seeking for maintenance and repair of the damaged roads of Nagercoil Corporation and caused hindrance to the general public transport and despite the warning given by the respondent police, he had continued to protest as against the then Government of Tamil Nadu and thereby caused the above offences.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and the complaint lodged against him is a false one due to political rivalry. He would submit that the petitioner had participated in a peaceful democratic protest headed by Mr.Suresh Rajan, MLA, DMK party alongwith other 35 party men for a common cause, however, the respondent police had mechanically registered the FIR against the petitioner without conducting any preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the information attracts cognizable offence as contemplated in the decision in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of UP in ((2014) 2 SCC 1). He would also submit that the FIR does not disclose any specific role played by the petitioner in the protest and it is very vague and therefore it is liable to be quashed. He would rely on the decision in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti ((2010) 1 SCC 286).