IN THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT
VANDAVASI.
Crl.MP.No: /2025
CC.NO: 95 /2022
Crime No:183/2022
A1.METHA RAMESH(50 )
S/O.KUPPUSWAMY PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
VS
S.I OF POLICE,
KILKODUNGALUR POLICE STATION
CRIME NO183/2022 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
DISCHARGE PETITION FILED U/S:258 C.R.P.C.
It is humbly stated on behalf of the petitioners/Accused herein
that the petitioners were alleged for the offences under section
147,188,448,341,353,149 of IPC under the Crime No:183/2022.
1). The prosecution has submitted the charge sheet with
fourteen witnesses. It is predominant to note that the
complainant herein is the police officer and he is also the
investigating officer in the present case. All other witness has
not spoken about the manner occurrence or how the alleged
unlawful protest was formed by the petitioners except by the
official witnesses levelled in their 161 statements. The material
aspects for constituting the offence alleged has not been made
out in anywhere.
2). The final report filed by the police apart from being
challenged for violation of 195(1)(a)(i) CRPC, also challenged on
the ground that the complainant, investigating officer and also
the person who filed the Final Report were all the same and
entire proceedings is void ab initio. The investigation has to be
free from infirmities and it should be fair as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the constitution.
3). It is stated that apart from the infraction of the procedural
mandate under section 195(1)(a)(i)CRPC the entire proceedings
are also vitiated by the fact that the informant and the
investigator are the same person and it would violate the fair
investigation.
4). It is hereby stated that for the alleged offence under
section 188 IPC, the proceedings should be contemplated under
section 195(a)(i) CRPC where it mandates the filing of a
complaint in writing by a public servant and police cannot
register an FIR and Investigate the case and file Final report.
5). It is humbly submitted that the definition of the word
complaint is distinct from the word police report as under the
section 2(d)of CRPC, in the present case the very mandatory
requirement of written complaint as stated in 195(1)(a)(i)CRPC
has not been made out. If the stipulation in 195 CRPC is not
satisfied, it absolutely bar taking cognizance for the offence
under 188 IPC.
6). It is also stated that under the section 188 IPC, three
aspects have to be taken into consideration from the defense
view. One, there has to be order duly promulgated by the public
servant which has to be reasonable and the public servant
ought to be lawfully empowered to promulgate the same and
Two, the lawfully promulgated order has to be known or brought
into the knowledge of the alleged accused or public and three,
the procedural mandates for instituting charges for 188 IPC
which is written compliant by public servant.
7). In the present case, the prosecution has not produced any
evidence as order promulgated in order to attract the provision
of 188 IPC, which is absent. Moreover, the accused must have
the knowledge of such promulgated order. In all the possible
net of accusation, the prosecution has failed to establish that
there was a promulgated order promulgated by the lawfully
empowered public servant. The prosecution has failed to prove
that any of the promulgated order which was either notified to
the public or published in newspaper as mentioned in the
guidelines provide by the Hon’ble Madras High court,
In Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep, by the
Inspector of Police, Karur District, held in para -25, the
guidelines to be followed for the offences under section 188
IPC. The online copy of the judgement has been filed along.
8). It is stated that none of the conditions mentioned in the
above case has been made out in the present case for levelled
accusation on the petitioners/accused. As the role of police is
confined only to the preventive in nature and he cannot register
an FIR for offences under section 188 of IPC which is regulated
under section 195(1)(a)(i) CRPC.
9). It is also stated that for the alleged offence under section
147,448,341,149,353IPC on the petitioners/Accused the
prosecution has not shown any material to show that force or
violence has been exhibited by the petitioners. The complaint
on the very basis does not even state as how the force or
violence is alleged to be used by the unlawful assembly or by
the members.
10). It is only the force which is distinguishing the unlawfully
assembly from rioting. As for the section 147 IPC is concern the
prosecution has not proved how the force or violence was
outcasted by the petitioners/Accused. Mere assembly of person
is not unlawful assembly. Even in such assumed circumstance,
the prosecution has not established followings the questions as
to whether there any injured or affected victims to such rioting,
did any of the alleged accused used weapons or objects
exhibiting the force or violence or if so, whether they are seized
and recovered as the prosecution evidence or was there any
complaints filed by public regarding the same. There is no such
evidence to constitute the offence under section 147 IPC.
11). In general assembly of persons expressing their
dissatisfaction on the government or any authority by use of
their legal right to freedom of speech and expression of course
will cause movement of hindrance to general public but that
doesn’t constitute to be an offence of wrongful restraint and
also there was no private complaint filed by public for wrongful
restraining.
Moreover there was no assault or force used against the public
servant while discharging their duties.
12). There is no promulgated order, no written complaints by
the public servant and there are absolutely no averments to
attract the offences alleged by the prosecution on the
petitioners/Accused herein.
13). It is also brought to the knowledge of this Hon’ble court
that Accused 25 in this present CC.No: 95 /2022 obtained
Quash in his behalf under the Crl.OP.NO:12839/2025 from the
Hon’ble Madras High court and the online copy of which is also
attached herewith for the courts pursual. The quash on behalf
of A25 was allowed by the Hon’ble Madras High court on the
ground that for the offence under section 188 IPC, Police officer
doesn’t have the right to file FIR and the mandatory procedural
aspects are not complied in the entire proceedings in
CC.NO:95/2022.
It is hereby pleased this hon’ble court to consider the
above stated reasons as sufficient and discharge the
petitioners/accused herein as the entire prosecution evidence
lacks the mandatory compliance and procedural irregularities to
disclose commission of the alleged offence implicated by the
respondent police.
Counsel for the petitioners/Accused
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, VANDAVASI.
Crime.No.183/2022
Crl.M.P.No. / 2025
Metha Ramesh
.... Petitioner/A1
Vs
S.I.of Police
Kilkodungalur Police Station
...Respondent/Complainant
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC 258
OF CRPC ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER/A1
Address for Service:
A.Najeera,B.Sc.,B.L.,M/S:1479/1999
A.SithikAhamed,B.A.,LLB.,M/S:557/2014
N.Seeba Ramzani BBA.,LLB(HONS)M/S:4242/2023
H.Thaslima Banu.BBA.,LLB(HONS)M/S:4243/2023
Advocate's
No:84, Potti Naidu Street
Vandavasi-604408
9944379241 /7339534501
IN THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT
VANDAVASI.
Crl.MP.No: /2025
CC.NO: 80/2023
Crime No:82/2021
A1.METHA RAMESH( )
S/O. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
VS
S.I OF POLICE,
KILKODUNGALUR POLICE STATION
CRIME NO:82/2023 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
DISCHARGE PETITION FILED U/S:258 C.R.P.C.
It is humbly stated on behalf of the petitioners/Accused herein
that the petitioners were alleged for the offences under section
143,341,353,188,296,270 of IPC under the Crime No:82/2021.
1). The prosecution has filed the chargesheet with list of ten
witnesses. It is predominant to note that the complainant in this
case is the police. It is also stated that there are only two
independent witnesses examined by the investigation officer
and all remaining witnesses were official police witnesses in this
case.
2). It is hereby stated that for the alleged offences under
section 188 IPC, the proceedings should be contemplated under
section 195(a)(i)CRPC where it mandates the filing of a
complaint in writing by a public servant and police cannot
register an FIR and Investigate the case and file Final report
without the written complaint by the public servant. If the
stipulation in 195 CRPC is not satisfied, it absolutely bars the
court in taking cognizance for the offence under 188 IPC.
In Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep, by the
Inspector of Police, Karur District, held in para -25, the
guidelines to be followed for the offences under section 188
IPC. The online copy of the judgement has been filed along.
3). It is stated that none of the conditions mentioned in the
above case has been made out in the present case for levelled
accusation on the petitioners/accused. As the role of police is
confined only to the preventive in nature and he cannot register
an FIR for offence falling under section 188 of IPC which is
regulated under section 195(1)(a)(i) CRPC. Registration of such
FIR and Final report are void in nature as of the guidelines
issued by the Hon’ble Madras High Court cited above.
4). It is also stated that for the alleged offence under section
143,341,353,188,296,270 on the petitioners/Accused the
prosecution does not any show material evidence to prove that
the petitioners were affected by Covid 19 virus and because of
the virus petitioners had knowingly attempted to spread
infection of any disease dangerous to life to anyone with
malignant act as of section 270 IPC.Mere assembly of person is
not unlawful assembly.
5). It is humbly stated that in general assembly of persons
expressing their dissatisfaction on the government or any
authority by use of their legal right to freedom of speech and
expression, of course will cause movement of hindrance to
general public but that doesn’t constitute to be an offence of
wrongful restraint under section 341 IPC and also there was no
private complaint filed by public for wrongful restraining.
Moreover, there was no assault or force used against the public
servant by the petitioners while discharging their duties to
attract section 353 IPC.
6). There is no promulgated order, no written complaint by the
public servant as mentioned in 195 CRPC for the offence under
section 188 IPC and there are absolutely no averments to
attract all the offences alleged by the prosecution on the
petitioners/Accused herein.
It is hereby pleased this hon’ble court to consider the
above stated reasons as sufficient and discharge the
petitioners/accused herein as the entire prosecution evidence
lacks the mandatory compliance and procedural irregularities to
disclose commission of the alleged offence as implicated by the
respondent police.
Counsel for the petitioners/Accused
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, VANDAVASI.
Crime.No.82/2021
Crl.M.P.No. / 2025
Metha Ramesh
.... Petitioner/A1
Vs
S.I.of Police
Kilkodungalur Police Station
...Respondent/Complainant
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC 258
OF CRPC ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER/A1
Address for Service:
A.Najeera,B.Sc.,B.L.,M/S:1479/1999
A.SithikAhamed,B.A.,LLB.,M/S:557/2014
N.Seeba Ramzani BBA.,LLB(HONS)M/S:4242/2023
H.Thaslima Banu.BBA.,LLB(HONS)M/S:4243/2023
Advocate's
No:84, Potti Naidu Street
Vandavasi-604408
9944379241 /7339534501
IN THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT
VANDAVASI.
Crl.MP.No: /2025
CC.NO: 75/2022
Crime No:141/2022
A1.METHA RAMESH( )
S/O. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
VS
S.I OF POLICE,
KILKODUNGALUR POLICE STATION
CRIME NO:141/2022 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
DISCHARGE PETITION FILED U/S:258 C.R.P.C.
It is humbly stated on behalf of the petitioners/Accused herein
that the petitioners were alleged for the offences under section
143,188,341,353 of IPC under the Crime No:141/2022.
1). The complainant in this case is a police officer and he is
also the investigating officer in this case.
2). It is hereby stated that for the alleged offences under
section 188 IPC, the proceedings should be contemplated under
section 195(a)(i)CRPC where it mandates the filing of a
complaint in writing by a public servant and police cannot
register an FIR and Investigate the case and file Final report
without the written complaint by the public servant. If the
stipulation in 195 CRPC is not satisfied, it absolutely bars the
court in taking cognizance for the offence under 188 IPC.
In Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep, by the
Inspector of Police, Karur District, held in para -25, the
guidelines to be followed for the offences under section 188
IPC. The online copy of the judgement has been filed along.
3). It is stated that none of the conditions mentioned in the
above case has been made out in the present case for levelled
accusation on the petitioners/accused. As the role of police is
confined only to the preventive in nature and he cannot register
an FIR for offence falling under section 188 of IPC which is
regulated under section 195(1)(a)(i) CRPC. Registration of such
FIR and Final report are void in nature as of the guidelines
issued by the Hon’ble Madras High Court cited above.
4). It is also stated that for the alleged offence under section
143,188,341,353 on the petitioners/Accused the prosecution
does not any show material evidence to prove that the
petitioners were actually members of unlawful assembly.
5). It is humbly stated that in general assembly of persons
expressing their dissatisfaction on the government or any
authority by use of their legal right to freedom of speech and
expression, of course will cause movement of hindrance to
general public but that doesn’t constitute to be an offence of
wrongful restraint under section 341 IPC and also there was no
private complaint filed by public for wrongful restraining.
Moreover, there was no assault or force used against the public
servant by the petitioners while discharging their duties to
attract section 353 IPC.
6). There is no promulgated order, no written complaint by the
public servant as mentioned in 195 CRPC for the offence under
section 188 IPC and there are absolutely no averments to
attract all the offences alleged by the prosecution on the
petitioners/Accused herein.
It is hereby pleased this hon’ble court to consider the
above stated reasons as sufficient and discharge the
petitioners/accused herein as the entire prosecution evidence
lacks the mandatory compliance and procedural irregularities to
disclose commission of the alleged offence as implicated by the
respondent police.
Counsel for the petitioners/Accused
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, VANDAVASI.
Crime.No.141/2022
CC.NO: 75/2022
Crl.M.P.No. / 2025
Metha Ramesh
.... Petitioner/A1
Vs
S.I.of Police
Kilkodungalur Police Station
...Respondent/Complainant
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC 258
OF CRPC ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER/A1
Address for Service:
A.Najeera,B.Sc.,B.L.,M/S:1479/1999
A.SithikAhamed,B.A.,LLB.,M/S:557/2014
N.Seeba Ramzani BBA.,LLB(HONS)M/S:4242/2023
H.Thaslima Banu.BBA.,LLB(HONS)M/S:4243/2023
Advocate's
No:84, Potti Naidu Street
Vandavasi-604408
9944379241 /7339534501
IN THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT
VANDAVASI.
Crl.MP.No: /2025
STC.NO:573/2022
Crime No:73/2022
A1.METHA RAMESH(50)
S/O.KUPPUSAMY
MANGALAM MAMANDUR VILLAGE,
VANDAVASI TALUK, TV-DISTRCIT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
VS
S.I OF POLICE,
KILKODUNGALUR POLICE STATION
CRIME NO:73/2022 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
DISCHARGE PETITION FILED U/S:258 C.R.P.C.
It is humbly stated on behalf of the petitioners/Accused herein that the
petitioners were alleged for the offences under section 143,283,290 of IPC
under the Crime No:73/2022 charged against thirteen accused in this
case.
1). The complainant in this case is a police officer and he is also the
investigating officer in this case.
2). It is also stated that for the alleged offences under section 143,
283,290 IPC on the petitioners/Accused the prosecution does not any
show material evidence to prove that the petitioners were actually
members of unlawful assembly. They were involved in obstruction and
causing danger to the life, health or safety of any person. There was no
complaint filed by the public as being obstructed or caused danger to
their life by the act of alleged accused.
3). It is also stated that there has to be any sort of common injury or
annoyance must be caused out of nuisance. Whereas in the present, no
such harm or injury seems to be proved by the prosecution by any of the
evidence.
4). The period of imprisonment for the alleged offence under section
143IPC shall be punishable with imprisonment extend to six months or
fine or both. Where as for the offence under Section 283 and 290 IPC shall
be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees only.
It is also stated that this hon’ble court should rely on the Hon’ble Madras
High Court decision of Justice D.BHARTHA CHAKRAVATHY in W.P.Crl.OP.No:
618/2025 dated 18-082025,
SUO MOTU VS STATE OF TAMILNADU & ORS,
Has issued certain guidance in order of directions Pilot Project to dispose
of the pending trial of cases where the imprisonment of the offences is
three years and if the trial is pending beyond three years, the court can
dispose of those cases at any stage pending for longer duration to reduce
the backlog of the criminal cases.
“1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that this bench is, inter
alia constituted as a Dedicated Bench for implementing the Pilot Project to
identify and dispose of Criminal Cases involving offences punishable with
imprisonment of up to 3 years, pending at the trial, appeal, or revision
stage for more than 3 years in the State of Tamil Nadu. This initiative is in
accordance with the guidance of the Hon’ble Committee of the Supreme
Court of India to suggest measures for reducing the backlog of criminal
cases at all levels.
2. During further interaction, it was guided that this can be extended to
offences like Section 506(ii) of the IPC and others, which may carry a
punishment of more than 3 years but overall will be suitable for approach
to be adopted in the project and align with the procedures that the
Dedicated Bench may adopt for the swift disposal of cases ”
It is hereby pleased this hon’ble court to consider the above stated
reasons as sufficient and discharge the petitioners/accused herein as the
entire prosecution evidence lacks the mandatory compliance and
procedural irregularities to disclose commission of the alleged offence as
implicated by the respondent police.
Counsel for the petitioners/Accused
