Allowed

Nagarajan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC9 Jan 2020CRL OP/477/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to direct police to grant permission for a cultural programme. The court held that mere apprehension is insufficient to reject the petition and imposed specific conditions regarding time, protection costs, and content restrictions to ensure public order.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to grant permission for the cultural programme subject to conditions on time, protection funds, and content restrictions.

Nagarajan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 09.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.477 of 2020

Nagarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Vellore District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue direction to the second respondent TO GIVE THE BANDOBUST for permission to conduct the cultural programme on 16.01.2020 in the event of Arulmighu Sri Kottai Amman Thirukoil at Nemili Taluk, Kattupakkam Village (Kavaraipettai), Vellore based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2020.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Durai Gunasekaran

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed to issue direction to the second respondent TO GIVE THE BANDOBUST for permission to conduct the cultural programme on 16.01.2020 in the event of Arulmighu Sri Kottai Amman Thirukoil at Nemili Taluk, Kattupakkam Village (Kavaraipettai), Vellore based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2020.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of arising law and order problem.

¶19

1/3

¶20

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

¶21

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 “Arulmighu Sri Kottai Amman Thirukoil at Nemili Taluk, Kattupakkam Village (Kavaraipettai), Vellore”, however with the following conditions:-

¶22

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of “Arulmighu Sri Kottai Amman Thirukoil at Nemili Taluk, Kattupakkam Village (Kavaraipettai), Vellore”, on 16.01.2020 from 06.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

¶23

(b) The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the 2nd respondent police towards police protection.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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

¶30

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

¶31

(j) The 2nd respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

2/3

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Vellore District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. +1 cc to M/s.Durai Ganesan,Advocate Sr.No. 2382 AKM/10.01.2020/3P-5C /

¶41

CRL.O.P.No.477 of 2020

¶42

09.01.2020

¶43

3/3

¶44

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

Nagarajan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarajan 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

Kumbakonathar@ Karunakaran Vs State Rep by

K.Vijayakumar Vs State Rep. by

S.Manoharan Vs State Rep. by

Gangavani Vs State by

M.Arul Anand Vs State Rep by

M.Yuvaraj Vs State Rep by