Allowed

M.Selvaraj, Aged 50 Years, v. State by

Madras HC15 Feb 2018CRL OP/4408/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge framed criminal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court allowed the plea to permit a cultural program at a temple, placing conditions on the timing, content, and conduct to ensure peace and communal harmony.

What did the court decide?

Permission to conduct cultural programme with conditions regarding timing, content, and prohibition of obscene, political, or communal material.

M.Selvaraj, Aged 50 Years, Vs State by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.4408 of 2018

¶6

M.Selvaraj .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs State. By the The Inspector of Police, Mallasamuthiram Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, praying to direct the respondent to provide police protection permission to conduct "The Great Dhilrupa" dance and other cultural programs on 24.02.2018 at Sri Mariyamman Temple existing at Ariyampalayam Village, Namakkal District.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Parameswaran

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

- - -
    O R D E R

¶12

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Sri Mariyamman Temple at Ariyampalayam Village, Namakkal District, the petitioner made a representation dated 12.02.2018 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 Court to hold that there will be a law and order problem in the

¶16

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

¶17

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 Sri Mariyamman Temple at Ariyampalayam Village, Namakkal District, shall be conducted on 24.02.2018 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(CCC)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Inspector of Police, Mallasamuthiram Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶34

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.S.Parameswaram, Advocate, S.R.No.11442

¶36

Crl.OP.No.4408 of 2018

¶37

RRK(20/02/2018)

¶38

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

M.Selvaraj, Aged 50 Years, v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Selvaraj, Aged 50 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

S.Murugan Vs the State, Rep. by Its

N.Chitra, F/a 34 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

C.N.Settu, M/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent Police

M.Gunasekaran, Vs the Inspector of Police

Vn.Doraiswamy, M/A.63 Vs State Rep by

G.Edward Karthik Aged 41 Years Vs State Rep by