Muthu Rahman and Others vs State and Others

S. Vaidyanathan, J.—1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the case in Crime No. 611 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

i) It is submitted that the petitioners are the members and office bearers of a non political organization, namely, Tamil Nadu Thawheeth Jamath, which is doing social works for the past ten years for the welfare of the downtrodden people. While so, on 01.06.2015, a group of Police from Melapalayam Police, led by one Mathavan Nair, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, trespassed into the Mosque with boots at prayer time and assaulted the innocent people, which resulted in scheduling demonstrations all over Tamil Nadu and pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners for permission, the 1st respondent also granted permission for demonstration.

ii) It is also submitted that on 09.06.2015, the demonstration was conducted as scheduled and concluded without any rustle. On the next day, the 2nd respondent, who is Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the 1st respondent police station lodged a complaint against the petitioners, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent mechanically registered a case in Crime No. 611 of 2015 for offences under Sections 153, 188, 189, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w 109 IPC.

iii) It is further submitted that the version of the 2nd respondent in the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offences or prima facie case, as the averment does not disclose any evidence that the petitioner had threatened anyone or any complaint has been made against him. The petitioners further submitted that the respondent has not followed any procedure laid down under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and except a vague and bald allegation of criminal intimidation, the defacto complainant has not stated that there was any threat to the life of anyone.

iv) It is stated that the petitioners conducted the demonstration against the atrocities of the Police Officials in a democratic manner and the same will not amount to promoting enmity between two groups or religious. The submission of the petitioners is that the respondent police has registered the case for the incident that had taken place at Madurai and not at Tirunelveli.

The 1st respondent has filed a counter, by contending as under:

i) It is stated that the 1st petitioner got permission from officials for conducting demonstration in which 3000 members were permitted to participate. During the demonstration, nearly 7000 members participated and thereby violated the conditions and also the promulgation order. The 1st petitioner also abused the Police Officers in filthy language in public place and threatened them with dire consequences. According to Section 154 Cr.P.C., it is the bounden duty of the Station House Officer to register a case, if any cognizable offence is made out. On perusal of the 2nd respondent complaint, since it was found by the 1st respondent that cognizable offence has been made out, the case came to be registered against the petitioners.

ii) It is further stated that apart from the above, the petitioners also made provocative speech so as to create law and order problem and riot in the locality and the speeches delivered by them were also recorded by the Short Hand reporters, who were also examined and Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements were obtained, as per which, public, school going students and shop keepers were very much affected due to such mass gathering. Moreover, the condition Nos. 3, 6 and 12 imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police vide order dated 08.06.2015, while granting permission to the petitioners, have been patently violated. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed.

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted by relying on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2007 SC that Section 153A IPC covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquility. Thus, it is his contention that the respondent police herein has not proved any such act against the petitioner except stating that he allowed to gather more than 3000 persons. He also referred to another decision of the Apex Court in Manik Taneja & another Vs State of Karnataka and another, reported in 2015 SC, in which the appellants therein posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Facebook page and the Apex Court, while quashing the FIR, held that mere expression of the words without any intention would not be sufficient to attract the penal provisions and that material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. The decision of this Court has also been cited by the counsel for the petitioners in S.Chellappan and others Vs State rep. by Inspector, Sivagangai District (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 12702 of 2010), decided on 02.11.2010, wherein this Court has observed that the mere assembly of persons without anything more, even as against the mandates as found set out under Section 30(2) of the Act, would not constitute the offence unless some untoward incident is shown to have occurred and quash the FIR. In this case, no such untoward incident had taken place except the bald and vague allegations levelled by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the FIR against these petitioners has to be quashed.

The Additional Advocate General has vehemently contended that while the 2nd respondent was on bandobust duty, she happened to watch the meeting and atrocious speeches made by the accused, which induced her to lodged a complaint voluntarily. He has further contended that by way of assembly, the petitioners disturbed the public peace and safety thereby created abnormal situation at the occurrence place. Besides that, they also made provocative speeches against the Government Officials and wantonly threatened them before the party members.

Heard the counsel on either side.

A close reading of the averments made in this petition would unravel that the petitioners obtained permission for conducting demonstration against a particular Police Officer, who entered the Mosque without following the proper customs and assaulted the innocent people. To express their protest for such act, the petitioners sought Police permission to agitate against him, in which, according to the respondents, the petitioners have violated the conditions imposed on them and uttered unwanted speeches against the Government Officials in public.

The contention of the respondents that the words said to have been used by the petitioners were in violation of Clause-6 of the conditions imposed on 08.06.2015, cannot be brushed aside. From the reading of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is clear that those decisions are not relevant to the present case, because as per the report of the respondents in this case, the words used by the petitioner would surely attract the provisions of Sections 188, 189 and 506(ii) IPC, whereas the Apex Court as well as this Court in the earlier decisions have not referred to the words used by the accused therein. In another case, the Apex Court considered the case with regard to the words used in the Facebook page.

It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in the judgment Manik Taneja & another Vs State of Karnataka and another (supra) has been pleased to hold that mere expression of the words without any intention would not be sufficient to attract the penal provisions and that material has to be placed on record to show the real intention. In the present case on hand, the respondents have adduced sufficient materials to prove that such act, namely, threat, intention to cause injury to the persons, spoil the reputation etc, has been committed by the petitioners.

I feel that every citizen of this country is an Indian and they cannot be discriminated by caste, creed or religion. Religion must be practised only in their respective houses or in the place of worship and not everywhere. Of course, every citizen of this country has the right to demonstrate in a democratic manner, but at the same time, in the guise of protest or demonstration, religion should not be brought to streets, which will not solve the problem, instead will aggregate the same.

Since several disputed question of facts have been raised on either side, they cannot be apprised by this Court at this stage and it is for the concerned Trial Court to look into the matter. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M.T. Watches Ltd., Vs M.A. Abida and Another, reported in , 2015 (2) CTC 446 (SC) has clearly laid down a dictum that unless the parties are given full opportunity to lead evidence either to prove or to defend their respective cases, it is not possible for any Court to come to a definite conclusion as to the real circumstances of the case. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the case in Crime No. 611 of 2015 and that this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the concerned jurisdictional Court as expeditiously as possible. In case the matter is taken up for trial by the Criminal Court, the Trial Court shall bring the issue to a logical end at an early date. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and it cannot be taken as the basis for deciding the case before the Criminal Court. The Trial Court shall decide the matter purely on the basis of the materials placed before it without being influenced by the opinion rendered in this order.