Case title: Simon & Ors Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police
Case no.: Crl.O.P. (MD)No.8122 of 2022 and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8164 of 2022
Decision on: February 23rd, 2024
Quoram: Justice M. Dhandapani
Facts of the case
The Petitioners on 10.04.2022 gathered to conduct the first year homage/anniversary of the deceased Silambarasan, who died following a police chase and torture on 07.04.2021. They held continuous demonstrations with a small number of people near Anna Statue without obtaining any permission which obstructed law and order. Further, they demanded to take action against the delinquent police officers for their involvement in the illegal act leading to custodial murder of Silambarasan. The Respondent, Police Inspector registered a complaint against the petitioners for the said offences.
Legal Provisions
The Petitioners were charged under Sections 143, 341, 153, 153B (1)(c), 120B of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Amendment Act, 1932 for the offences of unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, deliberate provocation to riot and criminal conspiracy.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The Counsel submitted that the deceased Silambarasan, a history sheeted rowdy was allegedly murdered by the first respondent Police by pelting stones. Aggrieved by the inaction against the erred officials, the deceased mother filed a writ petition before this Court for exhumation of the body to conduct postmorterm. Further, the petitioners held protest against the inaction of the police which led to the present criminal cases against them. However, the Counsel contended that that all the petitioners were innocents and democratically assembled near the Anna statue to make continuous demonstrations against the police officials, which did not amont to offences under the said sections.
Contentions of the Respondents
The Counsel submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the Police Inspector had completed the investigation, filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court and also assigned C.C. number.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court observed that at the time of protests there is no prohibitory order in place which prohibited the general public to assemble in a particular area. Therefore, it ruled that in the absence of prohibitory order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., the assembly of few persons in front of the Anna statue to make demonstration against the respondent police will not amount to commission of the offences under the said sections. In view of the above, the Madras High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioners and allowed their petitions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
