K.PALANISAMY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-151
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 04,2020

K.PALANISAMY Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondents

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 proceeding.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.