Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently held that in the absence of a prohibitory order under Section 144 of CrPC, assembling and demonstrating against the police is not an offence.

The bench of Justice M Dhandapani quashed a case lodged against six persons for offences under Section 143, 341, 353, 153, 153(b)(1)(c) and 120(B) of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.

In 2022, an FIR was filed against the accused persons following a complaint by a Village Administrative Officer. The complaint asserted that the accused organized the first anniversary of an individual who died after a police pursuit and torture. A demonstration occurred near a village statue without official permission. The complainant further claimed that during the event, there were calls to hold accountable the implicated police officers for their alleged role in the unlawful conduct and subsequent custodial death of the individual.

The accused persons moved the high court seeking relief. Their counsel submitted that the deceased had died due to police brutality and the deceased's mother, dissatisfied with the lack of action against the responsible officials, had filed a writ petition seeking the exhumation of the body and a postmortem examination.

In response, the accused persons, residents of the same village, protested the police's inaction and consequently, criminal cases were filed against the petitioners.

The counsel contended that the accused persons were innocent as they had only exercised their democratic right to protest which was not in violation of law.

He argued that the necessary requirements under Sections 143, 341 and 353 were not satisfied in the present case. Unless there is a prohibition, the assembly of the general public will not amount to unlawful assembly and the same cannot be culminated into registration of FIRs, he asserted. 

Court noted that at the relevant point in time, there was no prohibitory order prohibiting the general public from assembling in a particular area in the concerned village therefore, the accused persons' act could not amount to commission of the offences alleged.

"Even a bare perusal of the respective provision, the offences will not attract against the petitioners and in both the FIRs, the allegation against the petitioners is that they made demonstrations," court highlighted. 

Therefore, court allowed the accused persons' petition and quashed the FIR against them.

Case Title: Simon and Others v. State and Another