The principle Criminal law cannot silence citizens questioning police action Madras High Court was reaffirmed by the Madras High Court. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against two accused persons. It held that verbal protest against police conduct does not amount to obstruction unless clear statutory ingredients exist. Justice L. Victoria Gowri delivered the judgment under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Moreover, the Court examined charges under Sections 294(b), 341, 353, and 506(ii) of the IPC. It found that the prosecution failed to establish essential legal requirements. In addition, the Bench stressed that vague allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
Background of the Case
The case began after a New Year Holy Mass at Infant Jesus Church in Paramakudi. After the event, police personnel arrived at the location. They instructed the crowd to disperse.
Thereafter, officers took one of the accused for questioning. The petitioners argued that the police acted without notice or due process. Furthermore, they claimed the interrogation was unlawful.
When the petitioners questioned the police action, officers registered a criminal case against them. Subsequently, the trial court took cognizance based on the final report. Consequently, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings.
Prosecution Case
The police alleged that the accused obstructed a public servant. Additionally, they claimed the accused used abusive language and resisted official duty. Based on these allegations, they registered a case under IPC Sections 294(b), 341, 353, and 506(ii).
Moreover, the prosecution argued that the accused acted in concert. It also alleged that they prevented the officer from performing his duty.
Court’s Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that defence claims normally do not decide quashing petitions. However, it clarified that courts must intervene when allegations fail to disclose offences.
Importantly, the Bench observed that the prosecution materials lacked specificity. It also found that the record did not support the charges with essential details. Therefore, it held that continuation of proceedings would serve no legal purpose.
At the same time, the Court reiterated the principle Criminal law cannot silence citizens questioning police action Madras High Court. It also balanced this with the need to protect public servants during lawful duty.
Section-Wise Findings
Section 294(b) IPC
First, the Court held that the complaint did not mention specific obscene words. Instead, it contained only general allegations. Therefore, it ruled that the legal ingredients of the offence were not satisfied.
Section 341 IPC
Next, the Court found no evidence of wrongful restraint. In particular, the record did not show how movement got restricted. Additionally, it did not attribute any specific act to the accused.
Section 353 IPC
Furthermore, the Court stressed that mere questioning does not amount to assault. It clarified that criminal force or overt action must exist. However, the record showed only verbal protest.
Section 506(ii) IPC
Similarly, the Court found no material supporting criminal intimidation. It noted that the allegation remained vague and unsubstantiated.
Final Finding
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution relied on vague and mechanical allegations. It also observed a lack of proper application of legal standards. Consequently, it held that the case amounted to an abuse of process.
Finally, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the proceedings.
