Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4342 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4645 and 4646 of 2026

1. K.Sivasaami

2. Nagulan

3. Selvam @ Selvan

4. Aravinthkarthick

5. Marimuthu

... Petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2, 5 to 7

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police

Karur Town Police Station,

Karur District.

(Crime No.1531/2021)

.... 1

st

Respondent/ Complainant

2. Suguna

.....2

nd

Respondents /

Defacto Complainant

1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge sheet in

C.C. No. 441 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Karur, and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Ramaguru

For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the

petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 to 7 in C.C.No.

441 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur,

seeking quashment of the final report arising out of Crime No.1531

of 2021, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 294(b),

353, 290, 285 and 269 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases

Act, 1897.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on15.10.2021

at about 11.30 a.m. According to the prosecution, the petitioners,

being members of the Bharathiya Janatha Party, had assembled in a

2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

public place during the Covid-19 period, allegedly to celebrate the

announcement of the Tamil Nadu Government relating to the

opening of temples on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

3. It is further alleged that the petitioners and others

assembled without obtaining permission from the competent

authority, violated traffic rules, caused public nuisance, disobeyed

the directions of the police and thereby committed the offences

alleged in the final report.

4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Village

Administrative Officer, the respondent police registered the FIR in

Crime No.1531 of 2021 on the same day at about 3.30 p.m. After

completion of investigation, the respondent filed the final report

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, and the same was

taken on file in C.C.No.441 of 2023.

3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

Grounds for quash:

5. The principal grounds raised by the petitioners are as

follows:

5.1. Firstly, the petitioners contend that the prosecution is

politically motivated and that their names have been included merely

because they belong to a political party.

5.2. Secondly, it is submitted that the alleged gathering was

peaceful, without arms and without any act of violence, and

therefore, the same would fall within the constitutional protection of

peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

5.3. Thirdly, the petitioners contend that the final report does

not disclose any specific overt act against each of the petitioners and

that omnibus allegations have been made without individual

attribution.

5.4. Fourthly, it is submitted that all the witnesses are either

Government officials or police personnel and no independent public

4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

witness has been examined, though the alleged occurrence is said to

have taken place in a public place.

5.5. Fifthly, it is submitted that the ingredients of Sections

143, 341, 294(b), 353, 290, 285 and 269 IPC and Section 3 of the

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 are not made out even if the

prosecution materials are accepted in their entirety.

Submissions on either side:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

final report is a stereotyped prosecution arising out of a political

gathering during the Covid-19 period. According to him, the

prosecution has failed to specify the particular prohibitory order or

statutory direction allegedly violated by the petitioners.It was

further submitted that mere assembly in a public place, without

violence, without weapons and without any specific act of

obstruction, cannot attract Section 143 IPC.

5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

7. As regards Section 341 IPC, it was argued that there is no

allegation that any particular person was wrongfully restrained from

proceeding in any direction in which he had a right to proceed. With

respect to Section 294(b) IPC, the learned counsel submitted that the

final report does not disclose the exact obscene words allegedly

uttered by the petitioners, nor does it state that such words caused

annoyance to any member of the public.

8. Regarding Section 353 IPC, it was contended that there is

no allegation of assault or use of criminal force against any public

servant. A mere allegation that the petitioners did not obey the police

direction would not amount to an offence under Section 353 IPC. It

was further submitted that Sections 290, 285 and 269 IPC have been

mechanically invoked without any factual foundation. No act

endangering human life, no negligent handling of fire or combustible

matter and no material showing likelihood of spreading infection

have been pleaded with particularity.

6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

9. Lastly, it was submitted that the prosecution has been

launched without satisfying the basic statutory requirements of

Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, since the final report

does not indicate the specific regulation, order or lawful direction

allegedly disobeyed.

10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) submitted that the petitioners had gathered in a public place

during the Covid-19 period without permission and had violated the

directions issued by the authorities. It was submitted that the

occurrence took place during a period when public health

restrictions were in force and that the petitioners, by assembling in

public, had violated the applicable restrictions.

11. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that

the question whether the petitioners caused public nuisance,

obstructed traffic or disobeyed the police direction is a matter for

trial and that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section

7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

528 BNSS, should not conduct a mini trial. It was therefore

submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration:

13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the final

report in C.C.No.441 of 2023, arising out of Crime No.1531 of 2021,

discloses the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections

143, 341, 294(b), 353, 290, 285 and 269 IPC and Section 3 of the

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, so as to justify the continuation of

criminal proceedings against the petitioners?

Analysis:

14. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that, at the

stage of quashment, the allegations in the FIR and final report must

ordinarily be taken at their face value. However, where the

uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any

8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

offence, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent

jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of Court.

15. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the

allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any

offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala

fides.

16. The present case is not a case involving violence, assault,

damage to public property, intimidation, or any grave act affecting

public order. The gravamen of the prosecution is that the petitioners

assembled in a public place during the Covid-19 period and allegedly

celebrated a political announcement relating to the opening of

temples.

17. Section 143 IPC punishes membership of an unlawful

assembly. To attract the said provision, the assembly must fall

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

within Section 141 IPC and must have one of the unlawful common

objects enumerated therein. In the present case, the final report does

not disclose that the petitioners assembled with any common object

to overawe the Government by criminal force, resist execution of law,

commit mischief or criminal trespass, obtain possession of property

by force, or compel any person to do or omit to do any act. A mere

political gathering, without the necessary unlawful common object,

cannot automatically become an unlawful assembly. The final report

is silent as to the specific common object. Therefore, the offence

under Section 143 IPC is not made out.

18. Section 341 IPC deals with wrongful restraint. There must

be an obstruction which prevents a person from proceeding in any

direction in which that person has a right to proceed. The final report

does not name any person who was restrained. It does not state the

manner in which such restraint was caused. A vague allegation of

violation of traffic rules is insufficient to constitute wrongful

restraint. Hence, Section 341 IPC is not attracted.

10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

19. For an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, the prosecution

must disclose that obscene words were uttered in or near a public

place and that such utterance caused annoyance to others. In the

present case, the alleged obscene words have not been reproduced.

There is also no statement indicating that any member of the public

was annoyed by such words. In the absence of these basic

particulars, Section 294(b) IPC cannot survive.

20. Section 353 IPC requires assault or use of criminal force to

deter a public servant from discharge of duty. Disobedience,

argument, slogan raising or non-cooperation, by itself, will not

satisfy the ingredients of Section 353 IPC unless accompanied by

assault or criminal force. The final report does not allege that the

petitioners assaulted any police officer or used criminal force against

any public servant. Therefore, the invocation of Section 353 IPC is

wholly unsustainable.

21. Section 290 IPC is attracted only when there is a legally

recognizable public nuisance not otherwise punishable. A general

11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

allegation that the petitioners caused nuisance, without particulars

of obstruction, annoyance, injury or danger to the public, cannot

sustain a prosecution. The prosecution materials do not show how

the alleged act caused public nuisance in law. Hence, Section 290

IPC is not made out.

22. Section 285 IPC deals with negligent conduct with respect

to fire or combustible matter. The final report does not disclose any

allegation that the petitioners handled fire, combustible material,

explosives, crackers or any substance in a rash or negligent manner.

In the absence of any factual foundation, the inclusion of Section

285 IPC appears to be mechanical and unsustainable.

23. Section 269 IPC requires a negligent act likely to spread

infection of a disease dangerous to life. During the Covid-19 period,

public health regulations were undoubtedly important. However, a

criminal prosecution under Section 269 IPC must still disclose the

specific negligent act and the manner in which such act was likely to

spread infection. The final report does not state whether the

12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

petitioners were Covid-positive, whether they violated any specific

quarantine direction, whether they refused to wear masks, whether

physical distancing norms were breached in a manner attributable to

them, or how their individual acts were likely to spread infection. A

bare allegation of public gathering during the pandemic, without

more, cannot satisfy the penal requirement under Section 269 IPC.

24. Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, makes

disobedience of any regulation or order made under the Act

punishable as an offence. Therefore, the foundation of prosecution

must be the existence of a specific regulation, order or lawful

direction and its deliberate disobedience. In the present case, the

final report does not clearly identify the particular order, notification

or regulation issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act which the

petitioners are alleged to have violated. A prosecution under a penal

statute cannot be sustained on generalities. The accused must know

the precise statutory command allegedly violated. In the absence of

such particulars, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897,

cannot be allowed to stand.

13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

25. It is true that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be

discarded merely because they are Government servants or police

personnel. However, in a case where the alleged occurrence is said to

have happened in a public place and the alleged offences relate to

public nuisance, wrongful restraint and annoyance to the public, the

total absence of any independent public witness assumes

significance.

26. This Court does not quash the prosecution merely because

the witnesses are official witnesses. However, when the prosecution

itself lacks the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, the

absence of independent witnesses further weakens the foundation of

the case.

27. The FIR was registered on the same day with a delay of

about four hours. This Court is not inclined to treat the said delay,

by itself, as fatal. However, when the prosecution is otherwise bereft

of specific allegations and statutory particulars, the delay adds little

strength to the prosecution case.

14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

28. The petitioners have alleged political motivation. This Court

need not enter into the political colour of the prosecution. The issue

can be decided on a narrower and firmer legal footing, namely, that

the final report does not disclose the essential ingredients of the

offences alleged. Criminal law cannot be set in motion merely

because a political gathering was held. Unless the gathering travels

into the realm of penal illegality, the criminal process cannot be

sustained.

29. In a petition to quash an FIR, the Court examines whether

the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence warranting

investigation. In a petition to quash a final report, the scrutiny is

slightly more concrete, because the investigation is complete and the

prosecution must stand or fall on the materials collected.

30. In the present case, the investigation has culminated in a

final report. Therefore, this Court has examined not merely the FIR

allegations, but the prosecution case as projected in the final report.

Even after completion of investigation, the respondent has not

15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

collected materials satisfying the legal ingredients of the offences

alleged. If, after full investigation, the final report remains vague,

omnibus and ingredient-deficient, compelling the petitioners to face

trial would amount to abuse of process of law.

Epilogue:

31. The criminal Court is not a forum for the mechanical

conversion of every public gathering into a penal prosecution. Public

order and public health are matters of importance, particularly

during a pandemic. At the same time, penal law demands precision,

particularity and proof of statutory ingredients.

32. The State may regulate assemblies. It may prevent

unlawful gatherings. It may prosecute real violations. But when the

prosecution papers do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the

offences alleged, the liberty of citizens cannot be made to depend

upon a prolonged trial founded on vague accusations.

16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

33. The inherent power of this Court is meant precisely for

such cases, where the continuation of proceedings would serve no

legitimate prosecutorial purpose and would only burden the accused

and the trial Court.

34. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the final report in C.C.No.441 of 2023 on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, does not disclose

the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections143, 341,

294(b), 353, 290, 285 and 269 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic

Diseases Act, 1897, as against the petitioners.

35. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the proceedings in C.C.No.441 of 2023 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, are hereby quashed insofar as the

petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 to 7 are concerned. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

Sml

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Karur.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police

Karur Town Police Station,

Karur District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.4342 of 2026

.2026

19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis