N.P.N.ARUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.5594 of 2018 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai in Crime No.287 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2018, around 10.45 p.m., under the leadership of the 1st petitioner herein around 15 persons without any prior permission raised slogans as against the Central Government and the State Government to permanently close the "Sterlite factory"? running at Tuticorin. Further, it is stated that the defaco complainant requested the 1st petitioner and other persons to dispose from the place, they scolded the public using unparliamentary words and caused nuisance to the public. Hence, the 2nd respondent herein arrested them and registered a case in Crime No.287 of 2018 under Section 143, 188 IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Amendment Act, 2005. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the 1st respondent the sections in the FIR was altered from Section 143, 188 of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005 and Section 41(b) of Tamilnadu City Police Act, 1888. The 1st respondent police filed a Charge Sheet in C.C.No.5594 of 2018 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a social activist and has been raising voice for the public cause and public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the government machineries. In order to draw the attention of the Central and State Governments, the petitioner along with several members had raised slogans to close the "Sterlite factory"? permanently. The learned counsel further 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 Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 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, under Section 143, and 188 of IPC and Section 7(1)Ia) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005 and Section 41(B) of Tamilnadu City Police Act, 1888 as against the petitioners and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.