Allowed

M.Rajkumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2019CRL OP/3750/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. It held that mere apprehension of law and order issues is insufficient to deny permission for a cultural program in a temple festival. The court granted permission subject to specific conditions regarding timing, content, political neutrality, and communal harmony.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural program on 12.02.2019 between 06:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. subject to conditions on conduct, content, and neutrality.

M.Rajkumar Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 12.02.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.3750 of 2019

¶5

M.Rajkumar .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District-635 001.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District -635 203. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, issue a direction to the respondents to grant permission to perform the program of “Adal Padal” on 12.02.2019 at Sri Mariamman Temple Festival is situated at Kannandahalli Village, Kannandahalli Post, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2019.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mayilnathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Kannandahalli Village, Sri Mariamman Temple Festival at Krishnagiri District, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.01.2019 to the respondents. As the same has not been considered, the present Criminal Original petition has been filed.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of arising law and order problem.

¶14

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

¶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 event of permission being granted. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to conduct cultural programme in the event of Kannandahalli Village, Sri Mariamman Temple Festival at Krishnagiri District however with the following conditions:-

¶16

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of Kannandahalli Village, Sri Mariamman Temple Festival at Krishnagiri District shall be conducted on 12.02.2019 between 06.00 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. (c) Double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and youths.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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

¶22

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

¶23

(i) The respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶24

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

sbn/rpl

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District-635 001.

¶32

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

¶33

2.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District -635 203.

¶34

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.S.Mayilnathan, Advocate, S.R.No.12226

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.3750 of 2019

¶37

VSNII(CO)
rrs 12/02/2019

¶38

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

M.Rajkumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajkumar v. the Superintendent 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

Mr.M.Raj Kumar Vs T.Arunachalam

S.Ganesh Vs the State Rep by

S.Ragupathy Vs State by

Mohammed Kasim Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Amala Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Sooryarajan Vs the State, Rep by Its