Disposed

K.Sathakumar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC22 Jan 2020CRL OP/1161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC directing the police to grant permission for cultural programs, rejecting apprehensions of law and order without material evidence. Permission was granted subject to specific conditions regarding time, content, and cost for police protection.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural program on conditions including cost for police protection and restrictions on content and timing.

K.Sathakumar Vs State Rep. by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.1161 of 2020

¶6

K.Sathakumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Malayampalayam, Erode District. ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent to grant permission and to provide police protection to conduct Village folk and Cinema dance and other cultural programs on 26.02.2020 at Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, existing at Pasur, Erode District by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 11.01.2020.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to grant permission and to provide police protection to conduct Village folk and Cinema dance and other cultural programs on 26.02.2020 at Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, existing at Pasur, Erode District by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 11.01.2020.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 “ Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Festival”, however with the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of “Sri Maha Mariamman Temple Festival” shall be conducted on 26.02.2020 between 06.00 PM to 11.00 PM.

¶19

(b) The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondent police towards police protection.

¶20

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

¶21

(d) Double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and youths.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(h) 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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

// True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

ebsi

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Malayampalayam, Erode District.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶38

+1CC to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate, SR.No.4207.

¶39

CRL.O.P.No.1161 of 2020
BS(CO)
CSR: 28/01/2020

¶40

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

K.Sathakumar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sathakumar v. State Rep. 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

M.Yadav Vs the State Rep by Its

P.Sundar Vs M.Muruganandam

Sreemathy Vs State Rep by

K.Jeganathan Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.G.Munisami Gounder Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Velraj Vs State Rep. by