The Madras high court rejected an FIR against a person who was accused of protesting in the public roads against the CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT ,2019 without the prior permission of the authorities.

The person was charged under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC for protesting on a public road.

Knowingly and perusing the files Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan noted that the FIR has been registered for the above written offences and the bench said-He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioner and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.”

Guidelines were even issued under the Section 188 of IPC under the case Jeevandham and others vs. State in which one of them was-The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.