Read Time: 06 minutes

Quashing criminal proceedings in a matter relating to protests against Amendment of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), Madras High Court found the way two accused/petitioners were roped into the matter “unacceptable”.

The bench of Justice G.Ilangovan noted that none of the statement recorded during the course of investigation spoke about the identification of the persons, who were involved in the demonstration or protest.

Court said that the entire reading of statements recorded under section 161 Cr.PC and recordings during the course of investigation showed that the identification of person, who are involved in the occurrence, was not properly investigated.

Therefore, finding the whole process nothing, but, clear abuse of process of the Court and law, court held the proceedings against the accused/petitioners liable to be quashed.

Court, however, noted that the right to protest is well recognized if only it does not end in any violation, but finding no prima facie materials available against the petitioners' court allowed the present petition that sought summary trial before the Judicial Magistrate to be quahed.

Allegedly, under the leadership of one Gurusamy, 18 members of one organisation called 'Makkal Athikaram' protested against the Amendment of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) in December, 19 without getting proper permission from the authorities. Protesters had said that the Amendment in CAA discriminates against the Srilankan and the Muslims.

It was alleged that condemning the assault made upon the students of the Jamia University, Delhi, these protesters also made slogans against the Government.

This fact also came before the court that the said protest ended around 11:30 am whereas an FIR against the petitioners was registered at 12 noon under Sections 143, 341, 283 and 290 IPC.

Upon the question of subsequent FIR, police officials contended that during the course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioners was brought to their notice and thereby only a final report before the Judicial Magistrate was filed.

Though before court the petitioners had not denied the protest but they had argued against the proceedings mainly on the ground that the allegations made in the said final report, did not attract any of the ingredients of the alleged offence against them as their names were not in the FIR.

Court also noted that FIR itself showed that the protesters dispersed themselves after the protest, and accordingly, court held that it was seen that no untoward or criminal act has occurred.

Although court acknowledged that conducting protest, without getting any proper permission, is not proper but, sans any supporting material on record, court quashed the Summary Trial Case proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai against the two petitioners.

Case Title: Ananthasamy @ Anandasamy v. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Madurai