Madras High Court Quashes Case Against 13 Protestors Who Allegedly Raised Slogans Against National Education Policy 2020

The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against 13 persons who had allegedly raised slogans condemning the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union Government, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.

The bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan quashed the entire proceedings of the criminal case pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II at Poonamallee which arose out of the FIR registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 188, and 117 of IPC for their alleged act of protest.

Quashing the proceedings, the High Court noted that the police officer was not a competent person to register an FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC and thus, the FIR or final report was liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.

Further, regarding the charge of Section 143, the Court observed that since the complaint did not state how the protest formed by the petitioners and others was an unlawful protest and also, it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC, therefore, the final report was liable to be quashed

The case in brief

The case of the prosecution was that on August 16, 2020, at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioners (13 in number) assembled in front of the 1st petitioner's then residence, raised slogans condemning the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union Government, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.

On the basis of the above-said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Seeking to quash the entire case, the petitioners moved to the High Court

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble and also the right to freely express one's view or constitutionally protected rights under Part III and their enjoyment can be only in a proportional manner through a fair and non-arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of Constitution of India.

It was further argued that as per Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC unless the public servant has written order from the authority. It was also contended that the petitioner or any other members had never been involved in any unlawful assembly and there was no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody.

On the other hand, the Government advocate submitted that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case. It was further contended that though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. 

Court's observations

At the outset, the court observed that for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 188 of IPC, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has the power to take cognizance.

In this regard, the Court referred to Madras High Court's ruling in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karur District, wherein it was held that a Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC and for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has the power to take cognizance.

Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings in the case pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and the instant plea was allowed. 

Case title - SEEMAN and others Vs. IOP, CHENNAI

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

Click here To Read/Download Order