Justice N Anand Venkatesh quashed the FIR on applying Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which exempts acts causing slight harm from criminal liability. In doing so, the Judge also opined that while the State may establish TASMAC shops as a matter of policy, people have equal rights to oppose the same.

News
Columns
Dealstreet
Interviews
Apprentice Lawyer
Viewpoint
हिंदी
ಕನ್ನಡ

Litigation News
People who suffer due to TASMAC shops have rights to oppose them: Madras High Court while quashing FIR against women who pelted stones in protest
The Court quashed the FIR on applying Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts “acts causing slight harm” from criminal liability.
People who suffer due to TASMAC shops have rights to oppose them: Madras High Court while quashing FIR against women who pelted stones in protest
TASMAC Image for representational purposes only
Meera Emmanuel
Published on :
15 Apr, 2021 , 6:20 pm
People who suffer due to the establishment of TASMAC shops (State liquor vending outlets) are entitled to oppose them, the Madras High Court recently opined while quashing an FIR against ten women who had pelted stones at an Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) outlet in protest over its location (Jayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu and anr).

Justice N Anand Venkatesh quashed the FIR on applying Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which exempts acts causing slight harm from criminal liability.

In doing so, the Judge also opined that while the State may establish TASMAC shops as a matter of policy, people have equal rights to oppose the same.

“Establishing TASMAC shops as a source of income may be the policy decision of the Government. However, people who suffer due to the consequences of the TASMAC shops also have equal rights to oppose the same … In the considered view of this Court, ten ladies, who were opposing the location of an IMFL shop in the objectionable place, questioned the authorities and ventilated their grievance by pelting stones on the shop”, the order states.
The case involved ten women who were accused of pelting stones at an IMFL outlet in protest over its location. The Court recorded that the opposition came from women who were already suffering battering in the hands of their respective alcoholic husbands and who had objected to the shop’s location.

A quarrel ensued after the officials went ahead with locating the IMFL shop in the objectionable location, leading to stone-pelting and property damage. The IMFL shop salesman filed a police complaint, upon which an FIR was registered citing Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 353, 506(2) and 3(1) of the IPC.

The High Court was called to intervene in the matter by one, Jayakumar, who submitted that he was charged as an accused in this case only because he happened to be at the scene when the incident occurred. As such, he urged the Court to quash the complaint against him.

While dealing with the plea, the Court took particular note over the astonishing speed with which the complaint was registered and investigated, as well as the State’s decision to view the TASMAC salesmen as public servants in order to charge the accused with an additional offence.

“In the present case, the location of the shop was in an objectionable place and the ladies had opposed it by using some force. Immediately, the same resulted in a police complaint and a final report was also filed before the concerned court with an astonishing speed … The respondent Police while registering the F.I.R. have also added Section 353 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that the salesman, who was selling liquor was performing a public duty. This is the extent to which public duty has now been expanded by the State”, the order states.

The Court ultimately opined that the FIR against should be quashed in respect of all the accused in view of Section 95, IPC.

“In the considered view of this Court, the act committed by the accused persons can be brought under the general exceptions under Chapter IV of Indian Penal Code and it can be specifically brought under Section 95 of Indian Penal Code. All those acts, which fall under general exceptions is not considered to be an offence… this Court has absolutely no hesitation to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.82 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent Police and it is quashed in entirety, insofar as all the accused persons are concerned”, the Court said.

Advocate SC Vishwanth appeared for the petitioner, whereas Government Advocate C Raghavan appeared for the State.

Madras High CourtLiquor Polic

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com