Mohamed Asik vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.31899 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012103832026}
AND CRL.M.P.Nos.21032 & 21033 of 2026
1. Mohamed Asik
S/o.Sheikh Mohamed,
No.5/41, Edappalaiyam,
Thiruvathigai, Panruti,
Cuddalore
2. Hayathkhan
S/o Not Known,
Edappalaiyam, Thiruvathigai,
Panruti, Cuddalore.
3. Julaika
W/o Sheikh Mohamed,
No.5/41, Edappalaiyam,
Thiruvathigai, Panruti, Cuddalore
4. Mohamed Kasim
S/o Mohamed Haja Moidean,
VSP Nagar, Panruti, Cuddalore.
5. Askar Ali
S/o Abdul Faruk,
Old No.213/4, New No.443,
KSAR Main Road, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore
6. Ansar @ Thamim Ansari
S/o.Jailaudheen,
Samiyar Dharga, Panruti, Cuddalore.
7. Mansoor
C/o. Ameer Basha,
No.40, Pakkiripalayam,
Panruti, Cuddalore.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
8. Yashin
C/o.Syed Bash,
Samiyar Darga Street,
Panruti, Cuddalore.
9. Apupakkar
S/o Kasim Abdul Gafoor,
No.15/9, Police Line 7th Street,
Panruti, Cuddalore.
10.Alavudheen
S/o. Abdul Razak,
No.561, Vengateshwara Nagar,
Panikankuppam, Cuddalore.
11.Basheer Ali
S/o. Hammed,
No.4/69, Police Line 5th Street,
Panruti, Cuddalore.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State represented by the Inspector of Police
Panruti Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
in Crime No.450 of 2023.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records culminating in
S.T.C.No.1624 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti
and to quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.H.Dawood
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
S.T.C.No.1624 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Panruti.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other
accused, who belong to a specific political party, staged an unlawful
demonstration; the incident followed an event involving Aishabegum, aged
about 19 years, daughter of the third accused, who married a person from
another community, appeared before the Panruti Police Station and expressed
her willingness to live with her husband; in response, on 22.07.2023 at around
21:45 hours, the petitioners and other accused gathered without permission at
the Panruti Four Road Junction and staged a road blockade, alleging that the
Panruti Police authorities were responsible for allowing the daughter of the third
accused to go with her husband. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.450 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 143 and 341 IPC,
against the petitioners and subsequently, filed a final report before the Judicial
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti, which was taken on file as S.T.C.No.1624 of
2025. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent submitted that the petitioners, along with others, staged a protest and
there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial.
Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal
of the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record.
6. It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court should be slow, at the same time, if the Court finds that the
entire material collected by the prosecution, even when taken as a whole, fails
to constitute any offence, directing the parties to undergo the ordeal of a trial
will be a futile exercise and it will infringe the right of the persons and in this
regard, the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 , has held as
follows:
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
“........
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or -complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non~cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
7. It is also relevant to note the definition of Unlawful Assembly
provided under Section 141 IPC:
“Unlawful Assembly-
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an
unlawful assembly?, if the common object of the persons
composing that assembly is -
(i) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force,
the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of
the lawful power of such public servant; or
(ii) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal
process; or
(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other
offence; or
(iv) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force,
to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to
deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the
use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in
possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed
right; or
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
(v) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force,
to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or
to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.-
8. Only when the assembly fit into any of the above circumstances, it
could be construed as unlawful. In the case on hand, the petitioners had not
shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime or any offence or by
way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use
of incorporeal right, which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.
Hence, the offence under Section 143 IPC is not at all attracted as against the
petitioners and the same is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed and the
proceedings in S.T.C.No.1624 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court No.I, Panruti, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners alone.
Connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsd
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Panruti Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
nsd
CRL OP No. 31899 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )