Introduction:

The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against 14 men who were booked for allegedly assembling and raising slogans in support of the Palestinian people and against the genocide being perpetrated against them. The Court found that the materials collected during the investigation did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against the accused and held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the 14 accused seeking quashing of the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur. The petitioners were prosecuted in connection with an incident that allegedly took place on October 5, 2025, when they gathered at around 6:00 p.m. and raised slogans expressing support for Palestine and opposition to the alleged genocide against its people.

The criminal case was registered for offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 189(2) concerns unlawful assembly, while Section 126(2) deals with wrongful restraint. Following the investigation, the police filed a final report and the Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of the alleged offences.

The petitioners approached the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction to prevent continuation of what they contended was an unfounded criminal prosecution. Their case was that merely assembling and raising slogans in support of the Palestinian people and against the alleged genocide could not, in the circumstances of the case, constitute the offences with which they had been charged.

They maintained that they had not committed any act of violence, caused any mischief, used criminal force against anyone, attempted to take possession of property, interfered with anybody’s right to use property or wrongfully restrained any person.

The State opposed the petition. The prosecution submitted that the investigation had substantially been completed and that the final report had already been filed. The State therefore sought to resist the petition for quashing at a stage when the prosecution had completed its investigation and the matter had proceeded before the Magistrate.

The High Court, however, examined whether the allegations and materials collected by the investigating agency, even if taken at their face value and considered as a whole, disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. At the same time, the Court noted that the inherent power exists precisely to prevent abuse of the process of law and to ensure that an accused is not unnecessarily subjected to a criminal trial where the materials do not constitute any offence.

After examining the allegations, Justice Ilanthiraiyan found that the essential ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences were absent. In particular, the Court found no material showing that the accused had used criminal force to commit mischief or any other offence, attempted to take possession of property or interfered with any right enjoyed by another person.

The Court also specifically held that the charge sheet did not contain the ingredients necessary to attract Section 126(2) of the BNS relating to wrongful restraint.

Finding that the continuation of the criminal prosecution would therefore amount to a futile exercise, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the 14 accused.

The decision in PP Mohamed and Others v. State, Crl.O.P. No. 24299 of 2026, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441, highlights the importance of examining the statutory ingredients of an alleged offence before compelling accused persons to undergo a criminal trial.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, represented by counsel I. Abdul Basith, approached the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur.

Their principal contention was that they were innocent and had not committed any criminal offence. According to the petitioners, the criminal case had been registered without any factual or legal basis sufficient to attract the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita invoked by the police.

The prosecution case arose from an assembly on October 5, 2025. The petitioners were alleged to have gathered at around 6:00 p.m. and raised slogans in support of the Palestinian people and against the genocide allegedly being perpetrated against them.

The petitioners contended that the mere act of assembling and expressing their views through slogans did not, without more, establish the offences alleged against them.

Their argument was particularly focused on the absence of any allegation of physical interference or criminal conduct of the kind contemplated by the statutory provisions.

The petitioners pointed out that there was no allegation that they had used criminal force against any person, committed mischief, attempted to commit any other crime through criminal force, attempted to take possession of property belonging to another or interfered with another person’s right to use property or any incorporeal right.

They therefore submitted that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate the basic ingredients necessary for treating the gathering as an unlawful assembly attracting criminal liability under Section 189(2) of the BNS.

The petitioners also specifically challenged the invocation of Section 126(2), which concerns wrongful restraint. Their case was that none of the allegations or materials in the charge sheet demonstrated that any person had been prevented from proceeding in a direction in which that person had a right to proceed.

According to the petitioners, the charge sheet did not contain any factual foundation for the allegation of wrongful restraint.

The petitioners therefore argued that allowing the criminal case to continue would serve no meaningful purpose. Since the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not constitute the offences charged, they submitted that the High Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to bring the proceedings to an end.

They further relied upon the principle governing the exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. While acknowledging that such powers are extraordinary and must be used sparingly, the petitioners contended that the jurisdiction exists to prevent abuse of the criminal process and to secure the ends of justice.

The petitioners maintained that forcing them to face a full-fledged criminal trial despite the absence of the statutory ingredients would itself amount to an abuse of process.

The State, represented by Government of Tamil Nadu counsel R. Ganesh Kumar, opposed the petition.

The prosecution submitted that the investigation was almost complete and that the police had already filed the final report. The criminal case had consequently progressed beyond the initial stage of registration of the FIR.

The State’s opposition was therefore directed at preventing the High Court from prematurely terminating the proceedings when the investigating agency had completed its investigation and submitted the final report before the competent Magistrate.

The prosecution case remained that the petitioners had unlawfully assembled and raised slogans on October 5, 2025, and that the police had registered the case under the relevant provisions of the BNS.

However, the High Court was required to determine whether the mere existence of a final report was sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution or whether the contents of the charge sheet themselves disclosed the commission of the offences.

The petitioners, in response, emphasised that the stage of the proceedings could not cure the absence of the fundamental ingredients of an offence. Their submission was that even after completion of investigation, the Court could intervene where the materials placed by the prosecution, taken collectively, failed to establish the offences alleged.

The competing submissions therefore brought the case within the established parameters of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The State relied upon the progress of the investigation and filing of the final report, whereas the petitioners invited the Court to examine the substance of the allegations and determine whether a criminal trial was legally warranted at all.

The central question was consequently not whether the petitioners had assembled or raised slogans. Those circumstances were essentially undisputed in the prosecution version. The more important question was whether the conduct attributed to them satisfied the statutory requirements of Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the BNS.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the 14 petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur.

The Court began by recognising the limited nature of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. It noted that the power under Section 482 CrPC is an extraordinary jurisdiction and ordinarily has to be exercised sparingly.

However, the Court also reiterated the equally important principle that where the materials collected by the prosecution, when taken as a whole, fail to disclose the commission of any offence, compelling the accused to undergo a criminal trial would be a futile exercise.

The purpose of criminal proceedings is to adjudicate genuine allegations of criminal conduct. A trial cannot be permitted to continue merely because an FIR has been registered or a final report has been filed if the factual allegations do not satisfy the legal ingredients of the offences invoked.

The Court therefore examined the allegations contained in the prosecution materials against the statutory requirements of the offences.

With regard to the allegations concerning unlawful assembly, the Court considered the nature of the conduct attributed to the petitioners. The prosecution case was that they had gathered and raised slogans in support of Palestine and against the alleged genocide against the Palestinian people.

The Court found that the materials did not demonstrate the additional criminal conduct necessary to sustain the prosecution.

In particular, Justice Ilanthiraiyan observed that the accused had not shown any criminal force to commit mischief, crime or any other offence. There was also no allegation in the charge sheet demonstrating that they had used criminal force or attempted to take possession of property or of any incorporeal right possessed or enjoyed by another.

The Court’s observation was significant because it focused on the actual statutory ingredients rather than treating the mere existence of an assembly as automatically sufficient to constitute the offence.

An assembly does not become criminal merely because persons gather together. The legal character of an assembly depends upon the object for which it is formed and the conduct attributed to its members, as determined by the statutory framework.

In the present case, the prosecution material did not establish the necessary criminal element that would bring the petitioners’ conduct within the offence alleged.

The Court also separately considered Section 126(2) of the BNS concerning wrongful restraint.

Wrongful restraint necessarily involves preventing a person from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed. The existence of an assembly or the raising of slogans, without an allegation demonstrating such prevention, cannot by itself establish the offence.

Justice Ilanthiraiyan specifically held that there were no ingredients in the charge sheet to attract Section 126(2) of the BNS.

The Court’s finding was therefore based upon the absence of the necessary factual foundation for the offence rather than upon a determination that every form of protest or assembly is legally protected irrespective of its conduct.

This distinction is important. The judgment does not create an immunity from criminal prosecution for persons participating in demonstrations. If a protest involves violence, criminal force, wrongful restraint, damage to property or other conduct satisfying the ingredients of a penal offence, the participants may be proceeded against in accordance with law.

What the Court held in the present case was that the prosecution materials before it did not disclose those necessary ingredients.

The Court consequently applied the principle that requiring the accused to face a criminal trial in circumstances where the allegations, taken as a whole, do not constitute an offence would amount to an unnecessary use of the criminal process.

The High Court observed that although the power under Section 482 CrPC should not ordinarily be exercised to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence, it can certainly be invoked where the allegations themselves, even if accepted, fail to make out the alleged offences.

This principle serves as an important safeguard against criminal proceedings continuing mechanically after the filing of a final report.

The State’s submission that the investigation had almost been completed and that the final report had already been filed did not alter the Court’s conclusion. Completion of an investigation does not prevent the High Court from examining whether the prosecution case legally discloses the commission of an offence.

Similarly, the fact that the Magistrate had taken cognisance does not make the proceedings immune from scrutiny under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The purpose of Section 482 is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not permitted to become an instrument of harassment where the foundational requirements of the alleged offence are absent.

In the present case, the Court found that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose because the essential ingredients of the offences were missing from the prosecution material.

The ruling is particularly significant because the allegations arose from an expression of political and humanitarian opinion. The petitioners were alleged to have assembled and raised slogans expressing support for Palestinians and opposition to the alleged genocide against them.

The Court did not enter into an adjudication of the underlying political or international issues connected with the slogans. Its analysis remained confined to whether the conduct alleged in the criminal case satisfied the requirements of the offences under the BNS.

This approach is important from the standpoint of criminal law. Courts deciding a petition for quashing must ordinarily determine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offence. They are not required at that stage to determine the truth of broader political or ideological positions expressed by the accused.

The decisive consideration was therefore the absence of criminal conduct contemplated by the provisions invoked in the FIR and charge sheet.

The Court’s reasoning also reinforces the distinction between an allegation and an offence. Merely describing a gathering as “unlawful” in an FIR does not conclusively establish that the statutory requirements of unlawful assembly have been satisfied. Likewise, mentioning wrongful restraint in a charge sheet is insufficient unless the factual allegations demonstrate the acts necessary to constitute that offence.

Criminal law requires the prosecution to establish the factual foundation for each offence charged.

Where that foundation is missing, the accused should not be required to undergo the burden, expense and stigma of a criminal trial merely because proceedings have been initiated.

The High Court therefore concluded that the present case fell within the circumstances warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

Justice Ilanthiraiyan accordingly allowed the criminal original petition and quashed the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur against the 14 petitioners.

The decision in PP Mohamed and Others v. State, Crl.O.P. No. 24299 of 2026, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441, thus rests on a straightforward but important criminal-law principle: before a person is put through the ordeal of trial, the allegations and materials must disclose the basic ingredients of the offence alleged.

The judgment also illustrates that the completion of investigation and filing of a final report do not automatically require an accused to face trial. The High Court retains the power to intervene where the prosecution case, even taken at its highest, does not establish the statutory ingredients necessary to constitute the offences.

In the present matter, the Court found no material showing the use of criminal force, commission of mischief, attempt to take possession of property or interference with another’s rights. More importantly, the charge sheet contained no ingredients sufficient to attract the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 126(2) of the BNS.

With those essential elements absent, the Court found that continuing the prosecution would be futile.

The judgment consequently brings the criminal proceedings against the 14 petitioners to an end while reaffirming the role of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction as a safeguard against abuse of the criminal process.