Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the case of Thirumoorthy & others v. State, the Madras High Court held that,for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing or else the Court does not have the power to take cognizance. The question which arose was that, whether the registration of case under Sections 143, 188 IPC, registered by the respondent police is permissible under law or not? The provision of Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr. P.C was quoted and stated that, no Court can take cognizance without the written order from the authority.
The case started when the respondent, i.e. the police stated that, members of Student Federation of India were unlawfully assembled in the place of AMMA Memorial and also raised slogans against the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister for not revoking NEET Examination and also sought justice for the death of Anitha. Subsequently they were arrested and FIR was registered against them for the offences under Section 143, 188, 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Petitioner negated the claim and stated that they have not indulged in any of the offences which have been mentioned.The first petitioner in this case is Thirumoorthy who is a practicing advocate, andwho used to appear for Student Federation of India. The counsel further submitted that,Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely express ones view, which is protected under Part III of the Constitution.He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assembly and that is essential for a democracy. Further, there was no evidence that the Petitioner had restrained anybody.
The Court stated that as is seen from the charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial along with the fact that no one apart from the official witnesses, has spoken about the matter at all. The FIR in this matter was registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 188 and 353 IPC and he was not competent to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. Due to this, the FIR is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of the IPC. The complainant also does not state, how the protest was formed and how it was unlawful and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Thus it can be said that the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.The Courtallowed the criminal petition of petitioners and ordered for quashing of FIR against them.
86540
103860
630
114
59824