Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4124 (MAD)

V. Maran v. State

2013-12-06

A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking to direct the respondent police to register a case, for various cognizable offences on the basis of the complaint dated 03.12.2013, against the persons named in the complaint. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that at the time of campaigning members of, the political party, belonging to AIADMK party, attacked one Murugan with iron rod, due to which, the said Murugan died. In connection with this, a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., which is not in accordance with law. The brother-in-law of the deceased also has given a complaint and the same has not been taken note of by the respondent police. In such circumstances, he has come forward with this petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the complaint has been received by the competent authority and the case has been registered. The investigation has already been commenced. Therefore, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, remedy lies elsewhere. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the authorities have permitted the petitioner's party to hold the meeting. At that time, without getting proper permission from the second respondent police, Mr.Mohan, one of the Ministers belonging to other political party has arranged for two wheeler rally that has ramped into the campaign of the petitioner's party meeting, and as a result, there was a clash between both the parties and one of the members belonging to the petitioner's party died. 5. The manner of the occurrence has been denied by the learned Public Prosecutor by saying that it is not as stated by the petitioner. 6. This Court is of the view that these aspects have to be considered only at the time of investigation and the respondent police has to see whether Mr.Mohan, the Minister belonging to the other political party indulged in such activity while the petitioner's party meeting for election was going on. It is difficult to understand the offence which is said to be committed while the petitioner's political campaign was going on along with his sympathisers and supporters, the Minister, belonging to the rival political party allowed the two wheeler rally into the campaign of the petitioner. It is to be seen only after the investigation. 7. It is difficult to understand the offence which is said to be committed while the petitioner's political campaign was going on along with his sympathisers and supporters, the Minister, belonging to the rival political party allowed the two wheeler rally into the campaign of the petitioner. It is to be seen only after the investigation. 7. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the second respondent police is directed to investigate the matter. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved after the investigation, he is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law and this order will not preclude the petitioner to do so. 8. With this observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.