SHEIK MUHAMED @ DEHLAN BAQAVI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4985 of 2018 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 294(b) and 353 of I.P.C as against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 02.10.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioner along with 37 others headed by Tvl.Vidhuthalai Rajendran and few others assemble near the Gandhi Statue at Marina Beach and raised slogans against the State and Central Government. On hearing this, the respondent police insisted them to disburse from the place. Though Tvl.Viduthalai Rajendran, Thavasi Kumaran, Kannan Sheik Mohamed @ Dehelam Bagavi have gone out of the scene, the protesting group did not disburse and the protest held without obtaining any prior permission. Hence, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.779 of 2017 and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 143, 188 and 353 of IPC before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.4985 of 2018.

(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. In order to draw the attention of the Central and State Governments, the petitioner along with several members had protested towards the death of Gandhi as well as Gowri Lankesh, the Indian Journalist, who shot dead in Bangalore. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, right to freely assemble and also right to freely express one's view are constitutionally protected rights under Part III of the Constitution of India and their enjoyment can be only in a 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, Which is so essential for a democratic country. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless any public servant lodges a complaint in writing. 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 and when there were lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143, 188 and 353 of IPC as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceedings.