Public Assembling, Demonstrating Against Police Not An Offence When There Is No Prohibitory Order Under S.144 CrPC: Madras High Court

Justice M Dhandapani of the Madurai bench made the observation in a plea seeking to quash the FIR registered against a group of men who were demonstrating against the police inaction in a matter of the death of one Silambarasan due to police brutality.

“Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, there is no prohibitory order prohibiting the general public to assemble in a particular area. In the absence of prohibitory order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., assembling few persons in front of the Anna statue and making a demonstration as against the respondent police will not amount to commission of the 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,” the court observed.

The case against one group of petitioners was that they had conducted the first anniversary of one Silambarasan who allegedly died following a police chase and torture in April 2021. It was alleged that the demonstration was conducted without obtaining any permission and thus the police obtained a written complaint from the Village Administrative Officer and registered a case.

The case against another group of petitioners was that they gathered to conduct the first-year homage meeting of Silambarasan in Mathavan Seethaiyammal Marriage Hall and obstructed law and order.

The petitioners submitted that Silambarasan was murdered by the police who pelted stones at him. Further, when his mother filed a plea before the court for the exhumation of the body and conducting postmortem, the police refused to take any action. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioners were merely protesting against the inaction of the police. It was submitted that since there was no prohibition, assembly of the general public would not be unlawful.

The police informed the court that the investigation was completed and chargesheet had been filed.

The court noted that the offenses as alleged were not made out. Further, the court also noted that the court had already ordered an interim stay on the proceedings and thus, the police filing a charge sheet would amount to contempt.

The court was thus inclined to quash the FIR and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Henry Tiphagne

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 134

Case Title: Simon and Others v State

Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8122 of 2022