State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police vs Mohamed Ilias And Ors

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras, whereby the petition filed by respondents Nos.1 to 19 herein was allowed and proceedings initiated against them for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294(b), 353, 332, 323, 324 and 307 IPC have been quashed.

The factual backdrop is that the petitioners are members of an organization named "Popular Front of India" which had obtained permission from the police to carryout a procession and a public meeting called unity march on 17.2.2014.

The allegation against them is that though they were allowed to carry out procession from point A to point B, they violated the directions, insofar as the place where the procession was to start and move to. The case of the prosecution is that the police officials told the respondents that they have violated the permission by not taking out the procession on the permitted route and since that would make the procession go through a communally sensitive area, they were requested to stay on the permitted route. The organisers  of the procession did not comply with the directions of the police and thereafter the police had to use force to restrain the processionists from taking the procession in an area which they were not allowed to use. It is alleged that thereafter the police personnel were attacked by the respondents and 10 members of the police team suffered injuries.

The petitioners approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR mainly on the ground that the police had used undue force against the organisers; and the procession was carried out lawfully and the police had used forces to stifle their democratic right of procession. The High Court, after noticing the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 held that the Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines, where the inherent powers under Section 422, Cr.P.C. of the Court could be exercised. It was observed as follows:-

"An offence under secs. 147, 148, 149, 186, 294(b), 353, 332, 323, 324 and 307 IPC has been invoked. On the face of the record, it is evident that there are more number of injured on the organiser's side than the police side. The copy of the Accident Register produced before this Court would show that all the police personnel were treated as outpatient for tenderness, contusion and complaints of pain. However, they have invoked an offence under Secs. 324 and 307 IPC."

We fail to understand how the High Court in proceedings under 482, Cr.P.C. could virtually carry out a mini trial, that too without evidence, to decide that the procession was going on the sanctioned route or not; whether the aggressors were the police officials or the processionists. We are not commenting on the merits of the case either way but this dispute could not have been decided under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and this can only be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence recorded. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while quashing the FIR. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case and the Trial Court shall deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence led.

Learned counsel for the Respondents/ States that another case has also been filed by the respondents herein against the police but the same has not been investigated. That matter is not in issue before us but if the respondents have any grievance in that regard they can approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.