DHATCHINAMOORTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records vide FIR dated 21.06.2017 in Crime No.179 of 2017 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as against this petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 21.06.2017 the petitioner along with some of the college students were gathered in front of the Thiru.Vi.Ka College front gate and raised slogans against the college management for non-issuance of results for three students and road blockade without any intimation without getting prior permission from the concerned authority. On the basis of the above said allegation, the 1st respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and 12 others for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC in Crime No.179 of 2017.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the District President of Student Federation of India (SFI) which is functioning for the welfare of the students studying in various schools / colleges and doing lot of work in this regard to secure legal rights of the students and to protect the interest of the public. The petitioner does lot of demonstration, agitation against the government policies and also he leads number of student's struggle as a District President of SFI before the 2nd respondent / complainant. 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 ones 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 1st 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, 341 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.