FIR Registered Apparently To Suppress Dissent: Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Protestors Raising Voice Against TASMAC Liquor Outlet
The Madras High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in a case registered under Sections 143 and 188 of the IPC.
Justice P. Velmurugan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court quashed an FIR registered against the protestors who raised their voices against the establishment of a TASMAC liquor outlet.
The Court noted that the FIR was registered suo motu by the police, apparently to suppress dissent and protect the continued operation of the liquor outlet, which is allegedly a significant source of revenue.
The High Court was considering a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in a case registered by the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 143 and 188 of the IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan said, “It is also not in dispute that no individual member of the public lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Despite this, the petitioners were implicated by the respondent police, seemingly as a vindictive act. The FIR was registered suo motu by the police, not with the genuine purpose of maintaining public order, but apparently to suppress dissent and protect the continued operation of the liquor outlet, which is alleged to be a significant source of revenue.”
Advocate A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan represented the Petitioners while Advocate S. Vinoth Kumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution, on May 5, 2016, the petitioners, who are said to be members of the organisation “Makkal Adhikaram,” assembled near a TASMAC liquor outlet in Chidambaram and raised slogans demanding its closure. It was alleged that the protest was held without prior permission and caused obstruction to vehicular traffic. A suo motu FIR was registered by the police, and a charge sheet was later filed under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioners that the protest was peaceful and intended to bring attention to the grievances of local residents. The outlet in question was situated in a thickly populated residential locality, and its presence was causing considerable distress to the surrounding community, especially women and children. The protest was part of a larger citizens’ movement across the State against the indiscriminate establishment of liquor outlets in residential and sensitive zones.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the petitioners raised their voice against the establishment of a TASMAC liquor outlet within the jurisdiction of Senthiathope Police Station, Cuddalore District. It was made clear by the Bench that in cases of this nature, where members of the public, particularly women from the local community, raise legitimate concerns about the harmful social impact of liquor outlets operating in residential areas, peaceful protests cannot be treated as criminal acts.
Highlighting how the criminal justice system is being wrongly used against people who acted not for themselves, but for the welfare of the community, the Bench said, “This Court is of the considered opinion that peaceful protest, particularly on matters affecting public health and social welfare, is a constitutionally protected right. Citizens are entitled to express their views and demand accountability from the government, provided such protests remain peaceful and non-violent.”
Thus, noting that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Bench quashed the same and allowed the Original Petition.
Cause Title: Muruganandam v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police (Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.14103 of 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan
Respondent: Advocate S. Vinoth Kumar