(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.)

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is a constitutional safeguard designed to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. While the criminal law must be allowed to operate freely in legitimate cases, it cannot be permitted to be invoked as a tool to stifle democratic expression or to convert lawful dissent into criminal culpability.

2. The present petition calls upon this Court to examine whether the registration of the impugned FIR, arising out of a public demonstration, discloses the commission of cognizable offences or whether it is an instance where the criminal process has been set in motion without the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the First Information Report in Crime No.13 of 2026, is that on 12.01.2026, the petitioner along with certain others assembled at the Thirupparankundram hilltop, allegedly without prior permission from the authorities. It is alleged that such assembly was in connection with a demand for removal of a flag erected on a Kallathi tree situated at the said location. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner and others raised slogans, thereby causing disturbance to public peace and allegedly obstructing the free flow of traffic. Based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 189(2), 126(2) and 292 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Grounds for quash:

4. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the FIR primarily on the following grounds:

                          (i) That the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged;

                          (iii) That there was no unlawful assembly as contemplated under law;

                          (iii) That there was no promulgation of any lawful order by a competent authority, thereby rendering Section 189(2) BNS inapplicable;

                          (iv) That no act of wrongful restraint has been alleged, so as to attract Section 126(2) BNS;

                          (v) That the act of raising slogans in a public place cannot, by itself, constitute public nuisance under Section 292 BNS;

                          (vi) That the prosecution is an infringement upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Submissions on either side:

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire FIR is a classic instance of criminalisation of a peaceful protest. It is contended that the petitioner and others had assembled only to express their grievance and to raise a lawful demand, which falls squarely within the ambit of democratic expression.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no allegation of violence, damage to property, or any overt act that would attract the penal provisions invoked. It is further argued that in the absence of any promulgated prohibitory order, invocation of Section 189(2) BNS is wholly unsustainable. Placing reliance on settled principles governing quash jurisdiction, it is contended that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and others assembled without obtaining prior permission and thereby violated public order. It is further contended that such assembly caused inconvenience to the public and disrupted normalcy, thereby attracting penal consequences. The learned Government Advocate would urge that at the stage of investigation, this Court ought not to interfere and that the truth of the allegations must be tested through investigation.

Point for consideration:

8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the allegations contained in the FIR in Crime No.13 of 2026, even if taken at face value, constitute the offences under Sections 189(2), 126(2) and 292 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, warranting continuation of criminal proceedings?

Analysis:

9. It is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court can be exercised where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence or where the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp(1) SCC 335) has categorically held that where the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed at the threshold.

10. Section 189(2) BNS contemplates disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. In the present case, there is no averment in the FIR that any such lawful order was promulgated or that the petitioner had knowledge of the same. In the absence of such foundational requirement, the very invocation of Section 189(2) BNS is rendered legally untenable.

11. As regards Section 126(2) BNS is concerned, a careful reading of the FIR does not disclose any specific allegation that the petitioner restrained any individual from proceeding in a direction in which such person had a right to proceed. A vague allegation of obstruction of traffic, without particulars, cannot satisfy the ingredients of wrongful restraint.

12. Section 292 BNS deals with public nuisance, where the mere raising of slogans or participation in a demonstration, without any allegation of harm, annoyance or danger to the public at large, cannot be construed as public nuisance. Democratic dissent, unless it crosses the threshold of lawlessness, cannot be criminalised.

13. The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably are foundational to a democratic polity. Peaceful protest, even if inconvenient to some extent, is a legitimate form of expression and cannot be suppressed by resorting to criminal prosecution in the absence of clear statutory violation.

14. The facts of the present case, even if accepted in entirety, only disclose a public demonstration and not a criminal act.

15. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned FIR has been registered in a mechanical manner without satisfying the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged. Permitting such proceedings to continue would amount to misuse of criminal law and would have a chilling effect on lawful democratic expression.

Epilogue:

16. This Court is conscious of the delicate balance that must be maintained between preservation of public order and protection of fundamental freedoms. Law enforcement authorities are undoubtedly vested with powers to regulate assemblies in the interest of public tranquillity. However, such powers must be exercised with restraint and in consonance with constitutional values.

17. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.