K.PALANISAMY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to F.I.R.No.561 of 2016 dated 26.11.2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengodu Rural, Nammakkal District so as to quash the proceedings registered for the offences under Sections 147 , 341 , 188 and 285 I.P.C as against the petitioner.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2016, the petitioner along with other supporters joined with D.M.K. Party and made a grand scale function with wide publicity in and around Namakkal District
without getting prior permission from the concerned authority. 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 147 , 341 , 188 and 285 I.P.C in Crime No.561
of 2016, on the file the 1st respondent police.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier associated with a Political Party called P.M.K.
and later on with his followers and supporting of about 1000, joined
with D.M.K. Party by having grand function. 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 147 , 341 , 188 and 285 I.P.C
as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.