U.Sangilimurugan vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, U. Sangilimurugan, filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 308 of 2021, registered on December 2, 2021, by the Inspector of Police, T. Kallupatti Police Station. The FIR was registered under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, arrayed as the 57th accused, was arrested along with others for allegedly gathering near Laxmi theatre to protest against the price hike of petrol and diesel, and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on building construction materials. The police received secret information and arrested the individuals, subsequently registering the FIR. The petitioner contends that the FIR is illegal and seeks its quashment.

Held

The Court held that the FIR registered in Crime No. 308 of 2021 is liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission, supported by a previous order of the Court in Crl.O.P(MD).No.5263 of 2019. This precedent established that Section 151 Cr.P.C. is not a penal provision and that any action taken thereunder automatically lapses after 24 hours. Consequently, an FIR registered based on an arrest made under this section, without further penal provisions being invoked or justified, would be unsustainable. The Court found the petitioner's argument persuasive and directly applied the principle from the earlier judgment. The ratio decidendi is that arrests made solely under Section 151 Cr.P.C. without further legal justification or penal consequence beyond the initial 24-hour period render any subsequent FIR based on such arrest liable for quashment. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 308 of 2021, registered under Section 151 Cr.P.C., is liable to be quashed as illegal? The petitioner argued that Section 151 Cr.P.C. is not a penal provision and that any action taken under it automatically lapses after 24 hours. Therefore, the FIR registered against him, based on an arrest made under this section, should be quashed. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the same High Court in Crl.O.P(MD).No.5263 of 2019, which quashed an FIR on similar grounds. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention.