BALU @S.R.K.BALASUBRAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.158 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143,341 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2018 when the second respondent was on duty to prevent the crime near BSNL office, Palani road at Dindigul, the petitioners who belong to DMDK political party unlawfully gathered there and made slogans against the Central Government for not constituting Cauvery Management Board, when Section 30(2) of the Police Act is on force. On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 143,341 and 188 of I.P.C in C.C.No.158 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are 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 punlawfully gathered there and made slogans against the Central Government for not constituting Cauvery Management Board, when Section 30(2) of the Police Act is on force. 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 Sections 143,341 and 188 of I.P.C as against the petitioners. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.