logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6031 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : Crl.OP.(MD)No. 16688 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Parties : M. Senthoorvelan Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Madurai City & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: PR. Malan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, G. Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
Date of Judgment : 07-08-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS., to all for the records and QUASH the FIR in crime No.1046 of 2023 dated 14.09.2023 on the file of the 1st respondent Police in so far as the Petitioner is concerned and quash the same as illegal.)

The present petition has been filed by A5 in Cr.No.1046 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent, wherein, the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 143, 341, 290 IPC.

2. Perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner along with seven others belonging to a Student Association are said to have protested against the conducting of a Conference for eradication of Sanatana Dharma. Despite warning given by the police officials, the petitioner herein and others are said to have blocked the road and caused inconvenience to the general public.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner being a student of Law, had raised his objection with regard to the conducting of such a meeting and they have peacefully protested in front of the Conference Hall. The same cannot be considered to be an offence. He further submitted that for the past three years, charge sheet has not been laid.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent police submits that though the charge sheet has been made ready, so far, it has not been filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. The petitioner and others, who belong to a Student Association had conducted a protest in front of a Conference Hall, where a meeting was conducted for eradication of Sanatana Dharma, The petitioner and others have raised their agitation in a peaceful and democratic manner and further, there is no allegation of any damage to any public property.

7. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would only be an abuse of process of law. The other accused persons also stand on the same footing of the petitioner.

8. In such view of the matter, the FIR in Cr.No.1046 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed not only as against the petitioner, but also against other accused persons.

9. In the above terms, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
 
  CDJLawJournal