Allowed

K.Vijayakumar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC8 Jan 2020CRL OP/33/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection and permission for a temple festival cultural programme. Court permitted the programme subject to conditions regarding timing, content, public order, and police fees, dismissing the prosecution's apprehension of disorder as unsubstantiated.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; permission granted for cultural programme on 24/01/2020 with specific conditions imposed; police directed to protect petitioner; loop hole plugged by penalty provisions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.33 of 2020

¶6

K. Vijayakumar ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Melpadi Police Station, Melpadi, Vellore District. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer:

¶10

Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the authority to give police protection and permission to conduct Cultural Programme ( Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Mungileri Village Arulmigu Sree Ponniamman Temple Festival at Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District on 24/01/2020 between 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2019.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sathish Kumar

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the authority to give police protection and permission to conduct Cultural Programme ( Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Mungileri Village Arulmigu Sree Ponniamman Temple Festival at Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District on 24/01/2020 between 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2019.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1

¶19

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 "Mungileri Village Arulmigu Sree Ponniamman Temple Festival at Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District", however with the following conditions:-

¶20

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of “ Mungileri Village Arulmigu Sree Ponniamman Temple Festival at Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District" shall be conducted on 24/01/2020 between 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(d) Double meaning songs should not be played so as to

¶24

spoil the minds of students and youths.

¶25

(e) No dance or songs, touching upon any political

¶26

party or religion or community or caste shall be played.

¶27

(f) No flex boards in support of any political party or

¶28

communal leader, shall be erected at the premises of the programme.

¶29

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

¶30

(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

¶31

(i) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the dance

¶32

programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶33

(j) The respondent is directed to issue necessary

¶34

permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶35

6.With the above directions, this Criminal Original

¶36

Petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

mfa

¶42

¶43

The Inspector of Police, Melpadi Police Station, Melpadi,

¶44

Vellore District.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶48

+1cc to Mr.A.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR.1995 dt.8/1/2020

¶49

Crl.O.P.No.33 of 2020

¶50

AD(CO) CB(10/01/2020)

¶51

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

¶52

K.Vijayakumar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayakumar 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

Thirupathi Vs the State Rep.by

G.Dhandapani Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kumbakonathar@ Karunakaran Vs State Rep by

S.Manoharan Vs State Rep. by

M.Balasubramaniyam Vs State Rep by