Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3648 (MAD)

K. Jebakumar v. Director General of Police

2014-09-25

M.KIRUBAKARAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to register a case based on his petitioner's complaint dated 04.04.2012 as per the order of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4876 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012. 2. The petitioner contends that the inauguration function of I.P.L(Indian Premier League)took place on 03.04.2012 and the celebratees from Film world participated in the function. The said function was attended by the families, women and minor children. The live display was uncensored and semi-nude dances, obsecene movements were performed in the said function by the celebratees. The police who were guarding the function for being mute spectators and they were unable to take any action. The said function was telecast all over the world by Sony Set Max Television, being the official broadcaster of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Subsequently, the print media carried out photographs and video clippings of the inaugural function which took place on 03.04.2012. Many television channels are re-broadcasting the inaugural function repeatedly, which was watched by the general public particularly students. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondents who performed dance in the inauguration, committed offences under Sections 292, 293, 294 r/w 109 IPC and the indecent representation of Women (Prohibition)Act/Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Ac/Foreigners Act/Passport Act – Violations of Visa conditions and restrictions. In this regard, the petitioner gave a complaint to the first respondent on 04.04.2012, since no action has been taken, the petitioner filed a Crl.OP(MD)No.4876 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of on 20.04.2012, with a direction to the first respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaint. However, the first respondent has not acted as per the directions of this Court and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on records. 5. This Court in the interest of public asked the Union of India, as to whether it can create a mechanism by which a regulatory authority could be established to regulate the content and quality of the programmes being telecast by various T.V channels as there is no such control or mechanism. 6. 5. This Court in the interest of public asked the Union of India, as to whether it can create a mechanism by which a regulatory authority could be established to regulate the content and quality of the programmes being telecast by various T.V channels as there is no such control or mechanism. 6. However, Mr.Krishna learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 12 would submit that the similar issue is already pending consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in Common cause(A registered Society), New Delhi -vs- Union of India and another in W.P(Civil) No.387 of 2000 and in the matter of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti -vs- Union of India and seven others in W.P(Civil) No.963 of 2013 and Mediawatch-India, Andhra Pradesh -vs- Union of India and four others in W.P(Civil) No.1024 of 2013. In view of the pendency of the above issue before the Honourable Supreme Court the said issue is not action into. 7. Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offences have been committed by the proposed accused by their obscene and semi-nude dances which affects the minds of the young people. Moreover, the live telecasts is different from ready made programmes. Therefore, there should be a regulation with regard to the programmes. He would further submit that the police has to investigate the matter. 8. Mr. Krishna learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 12 would submit that there is no offence committed as stated by the petitioner. In fact, false allegations have been made against the celebraties and no such obscene and semi-nude dances were performed. A similar contention has been made by Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. Mr.R.Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 7, 8 and 10, would submit that the petition is not maintainable as the petition is the second petition and the allegations do not make out any case for registration of F.I.R. 9. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for R13 and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 10. Though the petitioner would contend that the allegations make out the offences and there should be a direction to register the F.I.R, a counter arguments have been made about the non-maintainability of the petition. As rightly contended by Mr.Veera Kathiravan, second petition for registration of F.I.R is not maintainable. 10. Though the petitioner would contend that the allegations make out the offences and there should be a direction to register the F.I.R, a counter arguments have been made about the non-maintainability of the petition. As rightly contended by Mr.Veera Kathiravan, second petition for registration of F.I.R is not maintainable. However, F.I.R was already registered, based on the petitioner's complaint by J-1, Saidapet L & O Police Station, Chennai-15 in Crime No.4264 of 2012 dated 01.09.2012 under Section 294 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 r/w Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 3 of Young Person(Harmful Publications) Act, 1956. The aforesaid facts have been incorporated in paragraph 5' of the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saidapet Range, Chennai-600 15 which reads as follows. “5) I respectfully submit that based on the above, the Inspector of Police of J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Tr.N. Balakrishna Prabhu obtained legal opinion from the Legal Advisor to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City and based on the above direction, registered a F.I.R in J1, Saidapet P.S Crime No.4264/2012 for offences under Sections 294 IPC & Sections 3 under and 4 r/w Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 3 of Young Person(Harmful Publications) Act, 1956”. As the F.I.R has been registered already based on the petitioner's complaint, the petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.