Allowed

A.Karthi, Aged 48 Years, v. State by

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CRL OP/3462/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order entertains a Criminal Original Petition filed to obtain police protection and permission to conduct a cultural dance programme at a temple. The High Court allowed the petition, rejecting the respondent's claim of unproven law and order issues, and granted permission subject to conditions prohibiting obscenity, political commentary, and ensuring community harmony.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural dance programme on 08.02.2018 between 6:30 PM and 11:00 PM subject to specific conditions regarding content, timing, and political neutrality.

A.Karthi, Aged 48 Years, Vs State by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 3462 of 2018

¶6

A.Karthi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs State. By the The Inspector of Police, Tharamangalam Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the respondent to provide police protection permission to conduct “The Great Dhilrupa” dance and other cultural programs on 08.02.2018 at Sri Kaliamman Temple existing at Kanganinur Village, Salem District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parameswaran For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan, Government Advocate(Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶10

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Sri Kaliamman Temple existing at Kanganinur Village, Salem District, the petitioner made a representation dated 03.02.2018 to the respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present Criminal Original petition has been filed.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent.

¶12

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), on instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of arising law and order problem.

¶13

A mere apprehension cannot be a ground to reject the representation. There is absolutely no material before this

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Court to hold that there will be a law and order problem in the event of permission being granted. In such view of the matter, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to conduct dance programme in the event of Sri Kaliamman Temple existing at Kanganinur Village, Salem District, however, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(a) The cultural programme in connection with in the event of Sri Kaliamman Temple existing at Kanganinur Village, Salem District shall be conducted on 08.02.2018 between 06.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m.

¶17

(b)There should not be any kind of obscene dance or vulgar dialogues during the performance, by anyone of the participants.

¶18

¶19

(d) No dance or songs, touching upon any political party or religion or community or caste shall be played.

¶20

(e) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader, shall be erected at the premises of the programme.

¶21

(f) The function shall not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste.

¶22

(g) If there is violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law and stop such performance forthwith; and

¶23

(h) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the dance programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

¶28

1.The Inspector of Police, Tharamangalam Police Station, Salem District.

¶29

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.Parameswaran, Advocate, S.R.No.9090

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.3462 of 2018
SS(CO)
RRK(07/02/2018)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Karthi, Aged 48 Years, v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Karthi, Aged 48 Years, v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Leema Mary, A/22 Vs State Rep by

Dr.S.M.Zambia, Aged 53 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Pramila Sankaran, Vs the Commissioner of Police

D.Ravi, Aged 45 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Gunasekaran, Vs State by

Mr.a.Rajasekar, S/O.Arjunan, Vs State Rep.by Its the Inspector