(Prayer: To call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking to call for the entire records relating in Crime No.29 of 2025 dated 21.01.2025, and to quash the same as illegal.

2. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the First Information Report, is that the de-facto complainant is the Village Administrative Officer of Kumaravayalur Village, who has lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent police on 21.01.2025, when she was on duty, she received an information that the people are going to protest against the amalgamation of Kumaravayalur village and other villages under Tiruchirappalli Corporation. She found the petitioner and other accused illegally gathered on the road for more than one hour, causing inconveniences to the public and traffic. On that basis, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 189(2), 126(2) and 292 of IPC.

3. The petitioner contend that the impugned FIR suffers from fundamental illegality and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioners submit that the campaign was conducted peacefully and that right of expression is a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is their case that expressing one’s views in a democratic nation cannot be criminalised unless the act satisfies the ingredients of a penal provision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the said occurrence, but her name was wrongly roped into the case. She has completed Master of Arts, Master of Education and Master of Philosophy and applied for a post of Junior Assistant in Srirangam Temple, thereby she approached the respondent police for getting no objection certificate. She belongs to SC community and having two school going children. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific overt act attributable to any of the petitioner and she involved in an unlawful assembly. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 189 (2) of BNS is not maintainable.

5. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that (i) since no public was affected ; (ii) no intention of causing danger to the public or (iii) obstruction to the public, the offence under Section 126(2) of BNS would not attract.

6. Further, he would submit that there was no proof to show that the petitioner has caused public nuisance in the alleged scene of occurrence and that public were affected. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 292 of BNS also.

7. It is further argued that the allegations in the charge sheet are vague, sweeping and intended only to portray a peaceful assembly as illegal. Criminal law cannot be invoked to curtail peaceful expression, which is the bedrock of democratic governance.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that based on the complaint given by the VAO, the respondent police registered the FIR. According to him, the petitioner has an effective remedy of participating in the investigation rather than seeking quashing at this stage.

9. I have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials placed on record. A careful reading of the FIR reveals that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. There is no allegation of violence, obstruction, public nuisance or disturbance.

10. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly without arms. These rights can be restricted only by reasonable restrictions provided by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that peaceful protest is a recognized democratic right, and criminal prosecution cannot be launched unless the alleged act squarely falls within the ingredients of a penal offence.

11. The ingredients of Sections 189(2), 126(2) and 292 of BNS are not made out in the FIR. Criminal law cannot be invoked on vague and omnibus allegations, particularly when the allegations seek to criminalise peaceful expression. The present FIR appears to have been registered mechanically and without application of mind.

12. In view of the authoritative pronouncements cited by the petitioners, and considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.

13. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 (corresponding provision of Section 528 of BNSS) to secure the ends of justice.

14. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.29 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.