S. LOURDUSAMY AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report filed by the respondent police based on the second respondent's complaint alleging that the petitioners committed offence under Sections 143 and 505(1) and (b) of IPC for the alleged occurrence dated 5.4.2012. The allegation of the second respondent in his complaint is that, the petitioners distributed pamphlets to the persons assembled in the church containing obscene words and thus created confusion and breach of peace in the community, attracting Sections 143 and 505(1)(b) IPC. In the final report filed by the first respondent police, which has been alleged that the petitioners issued pamphlets containing obscene words which are not found place in Government recognised pamphlets and thus created confusion and commotion among the people.

(2.) Mr. N. Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners distributed pamphlets containing the message of God by borrowing statements from the Bible as well as from the book edited by "servant of God". Even the complaint states that the petitioners distributed pamphlets with an intention to spread sacred news and the number of persons said to have assembled in the scene of occurrence were not given. In view of that no offence under Sections 143 and 505(1)(b) of the IPC is made out. He referred to the pamphlets, old testament and also another book "word of God" edited by "servant of God" and submitted that there is nothing new in the pamphlets printed and distributed.

(3.) However, Mr. A.P. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel Additional P.P. appearing for the State would submit that against the petitioners, based on the complaint given by the second respondent, F.I.R. was registered, investigation was done and final report was filed before the Competent Court. In view of that the petitioners have to face the trial and at this stage the final report cannot be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent supports the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.