Madras HC Quashes Case Against Men Accused Of Unlawful Assembly For Watching Ayodhya Ram Mandir Live Telecast [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against five men accused of unlawful assembly while watching the live telecast of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir ceremony, holding that merely because some people gathered to watch such a function, it cannot constitute an unlawful assembly.

Justice N. Sathish Kumar made these observations while allowing a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 1217 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore District.

Based on a complaint lodged by one A. Nagarajan alleging that by installing an LED screen in front of the Kamarajapuram Ram Temple Bhajanai Math to telecast the live Ayodhya Ram Mandir ceremony, the accused caused a traffic jam and disturbance to the public, Crime No. 21 of 2024 was registered under Sections 143, 341 and 290 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners.

The petitioners’ counsel submitted there were no specific allegations against the petitioners and no materials to substantiate the prosecution case. She argued that the prosecution was launched on false allegations and even if taken at face value, would not constitute any offence. She further submitted that the High Court, vide order dated January 22, 2024, in W.P. No. 1430 of 2024, had granted permission subject to certain conditions, which the petitioners had complied with, and they placed the LED screen only in front of the temple and not on the public road.

The court examined the conditions imposed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition, which clarified that functions, Bhajans, or Annadhanams conducted in private enclosures like mandapams and private temples do not require police permission, with organizers free to make arrangements for live streaming. However, where such functions could spill over to places accessed by the general public, police must be informed to take necessary measures to ensure no disturbance to public movement.

The court therefore observed, “It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever functions relating to different religions are conducted, there may be certain groups having grievances. Therefore, merely because some people gathered to watch said functions, it cannot be said to constitute 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.”

The court noted that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), courts should be slow, but if materials collected by the prosecution would not constitute any offence, directing parties to undergo trial would be a futile exercise infringing their rights.

The court also relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which held that proceedings can be quashed where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can conclude there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

The court examined the definition of “unlawful assembly,” requiring an assembly of five or more persons with a common object to overawe the government by criminal force, resist execution of law, commit mischief or criminal trespass, take possession of property by criminal force, or compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do.

It also held, “The materials collected by the prosecution do 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 exercise any incorporeal right in the possession or enjoyment of others.”

The court further observed, “Even as per the First Information Report, it is not the case of the de facto complainant that the accused have unlawfully assembled and used force or violence and hence, the offence under Section 143 of IPC is not attracted.”

The court therefore concluded, “The mere launching of an FIR by the prosecution itself is not sufficient to reach 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.”

The court allowed the Criminal Original Petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 1217 of 2024.

Ms. B. Sruthi for Ms. A. Jagadeeswari appeared for the petitioners, while Mr. R. Vinothraja, Public Prosecutor (Coimbatore City), appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Sureshbabu & Ors. v. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, R.S. Puram Police Station

[Read Order]