Allowed

R.Perumal (M/37) v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Feb 2018CRL OP/4109/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed by R.Perumal seeking police protection and permission to conduct a cultural programme during a temple festival. The Court held that mere apprehension without material evidence cannot justify rejection. Permission and protection were granted subject to strict conditions prohibiting obscenity, political or communal overtone

What did the court decide?

Allowed the criminal original petition; permitted the petitioner to conduct the cultural programme on 01.03.2018 subject to specific conditions prohibiting obscenity, political matters, and ensuring s

R.Perumal (M/37) Vs the Inspector of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.4109 of 2018

¶6

R.Perumal .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Kandili, Vellore District. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, praying to direct the respondent authority to give police protection and permission to conduct cultural programme (Adal Padal) at Manavalli Arulmigu Sree Kaliamman Temple Festival at Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District on 01.03.2018 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2018.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Sathishkumar

¶11

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

¶12

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Manavalli Arulmigu Sree Kaliamman Temple Festival at Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.02.2018 to the respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 cultural programme , however, with the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of Manavalli Arulmigu Sree Kaliamman Temple Festival at Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District, shall be conducted on 01.03.2018 between 06.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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

¶25

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

¶26

(i) The respondent is directed to issue necessary protection and permission, incorporating the above conditions. Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station,

¶34

Kandili,

¶35

Vellore District.

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.A.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.10923

¶38

Crl.OP.No.4109 of 2018
RRK(19/02/2018)

¶39

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

R.Perumal (M/37) v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Perumal (M/37) v. the Inspector of Police

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

G.Anbalagan, M/43 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Vijayakumar, Aged 67 Years, Vs State Rep. by

C.Senthilkumar, Vs State by

V.K.Ranganathan, Aged 46 Years Vs State by

Mr.M.Gowri Shankar, A/38, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M.Elumalai, (M/49) Vs the Inspector of Police