Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.12780 of 2026 Thanga Ananthan … Petitioner vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Srimushnam Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.64 of 2026) 2.Gopinath … Respondents PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Crime. No.64 of 2026 pending on the file of the Srimushnam Police Station, Cuddalore and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Gopinath For R1 : Mr.Arun Anbumani Government Advocate (Criminal Side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime. No.64 of 2026 pending on the file of the Srimushnam 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 Police Station, Cuddalore, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as against the petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.04.2026 at about 10.30 a.m., the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Srimushnam Police Station, along with other police personnel, was on security duty near the Anna Statue, Srimushnam, in connection with the election campaign of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi candidate namely the petitioner herein for the Kattumannarkoil Assembly Constituency. It is the further case of the prosecution that permission had been granted to the petitioner to conduct the election campaign only at the designated venue near the Anna Statue. However, the petitioner herein along with other party functionaries, allegedly escorted the VCK President, Thiru.Thol.Thirumavalavan, to an unauthorised location near the Gandhi Statue and conducted the election campaign there. It is also alledged that by conducting the election campaign at a place other than the permitted venue, the petitioner violated the Election Model Code of Conduct and caused obstruction and inconvenience to the general public and vehicular traffic. On the basis of the above said allegations, the 1st respondent/police registered 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.64 of 2026, on the file the 1st respondent/police and the same is pending for investigation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a social activist and an active member of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi political party and have been raising voice for the public cause and public welfare, environmental protection and whenever injustice arises due to inaction of the government machineries. In order to develop the Kattumannarkoil Assembly Constituency, the petitioner conducted the election campaign at Gandhi Statue in the presence of VCK President, Thiru.Thol.Thirumavalavan and not for any other purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to free assembly and also right to freely express once view are constitutionally protected rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution and their enjoyment be curtailed only in proportional manner through a fair and non-arbitrary procedure provided under Article 19 of Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assembly that is 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 so essential to a democracy. According to Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, unless a public servant has a written order from a competent authority. Further, he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never been involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the 1st respondent police had beaten the petitioner. When there was lot of members involved in the election campaign, the 1st respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, only as against the petitioner. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner along with others had conducted election campaign in an unauthorised location and there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to proceed with the trial. Further, he would submit that Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is a cognizable offence and therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case. Though there is a bar under Section 215(1)(a) of the 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to take cognizance for the offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. Moreover, the petitioner is an habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner and others had conducted election campaign in an unauthorised location, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority and caused obstruction and inconvenience to the general public and vehicular traffic. Therefore the 1st respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as against the petitioner. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. It is also seen from the charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial. Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 2023 reads as follows: “223. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant — Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, (a) shall, if such disobedience causes or tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees, or with both; (b) and where such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.” 7. The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered by the 1st respondent police is permissible under law or not? 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 In this regard it is relevant to extract Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:- “215. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding Section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate .....” Therefore, it is very clear that for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in Mahaboob Basha Vs. Sambanda Reddiar and others reported in 1994(1) 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 Crimes, Page 477. He also relied upon a judgment in a batch of quash petitions, reported in 2018-2-L.W. (Crl.) 606 in Crl.O.P. (MD)No. 1356 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018 in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karur District, and this Court held in Paragraph-25, as follows :- "25.In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned: a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC. c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take cognizance of such complaint on being prima facie satisfied with the requirements of Section 188 of IPC. d) In order to attract the provisions of Section 188 of IPC, 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 the written complaint of the public servant concerned should reflect the following ingredients namely; i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant; ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate it; iii) that the person with knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession and under his management, has disobeyed; and iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to cause; (a) obstruction,annoyance or risk of it to any person lawfully employed; or (b) danger to human life, health or safety; or (c) a riot or affray. e) The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police. f) The promulgation through which, the order is made known must be by something done openly and in public and private information will not be a promulgation. The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation. 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 g) No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. 9. In the case on hand, the First Information Report in Crime No.64 of 2026 has been registered by the 1st respondent police for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the election campaign conducted by the petitioner and others is an 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 unlawful activities and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, the above said charges framed as against the petitioner cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.64 of 2026 pending on the file of the Srimushnam Police Station, Cuddalore, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.07.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srimushnam Police Station, Cuddalore District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN , J. dm Crl.O.P.No.19226 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.12780 of 2026 17.07.2026 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis