Merely Because People Gathered To Watch Religious Function, It Can’t Be Called Unlawful Assembly: Madras High Court Quashes Criminal Case

The High Court was considering a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the proceedings, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed, “Therefore, merely because some people gathered to watch said functions, it cannot be said as an unlawful assembly so as to attract the aforesaid offence. Further, there was no public nuisance. Hence, merely on the basis of the complaint lodged by an individual, the prosecution cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons.”

Advocate B.Sruthi represented the Petitioners while Public Prosecutor R.Vinothraja represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that by installing the LED screen in front of the Kamarajapuram Ram Temple Bhajanai Math to telecast the live of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir ceremony, the accused caused a traffic jam and disturbance to the public. A criminal case was registered for the offence under Sections 143, 341 and 290 IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners, and the Magistrate took cognizance of the same.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the allegations that the petitioners had installed the LED screen in a public place and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. The Bench observed that whenever functions relating to different religions are conducted, there may be certain groups having grievances.

The Bench explained that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), the Court should be slow. At the same time, if the Court finds that the entire materials collected by the prosecution, taken as a whole, would not constitute any offence, in such a situation, directing the parties to undergo the ordeal of trial would be a futile exercise and would infringe the right of the persons concerned. The materials collected by the prosecution did not show that the accused had shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime or any offence or by way of criminal force, tried to take possession of the property or exercised any incorporeal right in the possession or enjoyment of others.

“Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the mere launching of an FIR by the prosecution itself is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the offences are made out. The materials collected by the prosecution do not support the case, therefore, continuing the prosecution on such shaky grounds or without any materials would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law”, it held.

Allowing the criminal petition, the Bench quashed the proceedings against the Petitioners.

Cause Title: Sureshbabu v. The State (Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.27515 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates B.Sruthi, A.Jagadeeswari

Respondent: Public Prosecutor R.Vinothraja

Click here to read/download Order