'Raised Legitimate Public Issue; No Adverse Consequence Ensued': Madras HC Quashes FIR Over Protest Gathering During Pandemic
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a member of the political party for organizing protest in November 2020, the peak days of Covid-19 pandemic. "…The petitioner is a member of the political party. They have only raised a legitimate public issue. As a result of the petitioner's conduct, no adverse consequence ensued. The accused has not indulged in...
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a member of the political party for organizing protest in November 2020, the peak days of Covid-19 pandemic.
"…The petitioner is a member of the political party. They have only raised a legitimate public issue. As a result of the petitioner's conduct, no adverse consequence ensued. The accused has not indulged in any act of violence. I am therefore of the view that continuation of the impugned prosecution is not warranted. FIR stands quashed," Justice G.R Swaminathan observed while pronouncing the order
The petitioner (A. Muniadhas) and other accused had assembled to voice their protest for not constructing a Government Hospital at the allotted site.
Accordingly, a suo moto complaint was registered by the Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor under IPC Sections 143 (Punishment for being a member of unlawful assembly) and 269 (Negligent act likely to spread the infection of disease dangerous to life).
It was stated that the participants in the protest didn't seek prior permission for the same.
"I do not fault the first respondent for registering the FIR. The question is whether the prosecution should be allowed to continue…," remarked the Court.
The petitioner counsel submitted that the police officials had not promulgated restrictions under Section 144 CrPC and that there was no unrest at the protest so as to register a complaint. He also added that he was not afflicted with Covid-19 during the protest. He further submitted that the petitioner only came to know about the criminal case pending against him when he applied for police clearance certificate from the passport office lately. It was also submitted that the petitioner had obtained an employment visa from abroad and the case pending against him will detrimentally affect his life and livelihood.
Referring to Peer Maideen vs The Sub Inspector of Police (2020) and Jeevanandham v. State Represented through Inspector of Police (2018), the petitioner argued that the FIR cannot be sustained for a harmless act in the absence of any untoward incident or violence, even if Section 144 CrPC was in force.
Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992), the petitioner counsel contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against him was 'manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.'
As there was no adverse consequence of the protestors' actions, raising only a 'legitimate public issue', the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Muniadhas and other non-petitioning accused.
Case Title: A Muniadhas v. The State represented by The Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case No: Crl. O.P.(MD)No.17957 of 2021