Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2886 (MAD)

K. Madhana Gopal v. Superintendent of Police

2015-08-26

R.MALA

body2015
ORDER The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in No.Nil dated 07.08.2015 and to direct second respondent to permit the petitioner to organize a demonstration as mentioned in the representation in any future dates in accordance with law. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one V.Rajendran who is a member and office bearer of the petitioner's political party was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.196 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 435, 506(i) and 109 IPC on the file of the third respondent police. Since a false case has been foisted against the said Rajendran without finding the real culprit, it was decided to conduct a demonstration on 10.08.2015 at AKG Thidal, Cumbum. However, when the petitioner made representations to the 2nd respondent/Inspector of Police, Cumbam North Police Station, Theni District, seeking permission for conducting demonstration, the 3rd respondent/ Inspector of Police, Royappanpatti Police Station, Theni District, by impugned order dated 07.08.2015 rejected the request of the petitioner for conducting demonstration stating that the 3 investigation in Crime No.196 of 2015 is going on and if permission is granted, it would create law and order problem. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that Kambam is not coming within the jurisdiction of the third respondent police. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Article 19 of the Constitution of India states that every person is having right to freedom of speech and expression and hence the same cannot be violated. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in S. Sivabalan -vs- Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur Sub-Division, Tiruppur 641 607 and another reported in (2011) 3 MLJ 1046 wherein, at paragraph 29, it has been held that in that light of the decisions of various courts protecting the constitutional rights of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) and 21, to express his views, within the constitutional limitations, the restriction placed on the petitioner to hold a public meeting with the participation of the speaker is arbitrary. 4. 4. At this juncture, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the case has been 4 registered only on 06.07.2015 and the investigation is going on. While so, the permission sought for by the petitioner to conduct demonstration is nothing but threatening the police and it would also create law and order problem. Considering the above, the 3rd respondent has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner by the impugned order He further submits that the attempt of the petitioner is nothing but an arm twisting method to force the investigating agency and interfere with the investigation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. Considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the typed set of papers, the case of the petitioner is that one Rajendran is a member and officer bearer of the petitioner's party and that a case has been registered against him in Crime No.196 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 435, 506(i) and 109 IPC on the file of the third respondent police station. It was stated that the de-facto complainant's vehicle hit a person namely one Kannan who is the 5 employee of TNSTC. So, the case of the respondent is that the said Rajendran along with others had gone to the house of the de-facto complainant and asked for compensation, as the said injured Kannan lost his eye sight in the occurrence took place. The case of the petitioner is that the de-facto complainant hand in glove with the 3rd respondent, registered the false complaint. 7. Admittedly, a case was registered in Crime No.196 of 2015 on 06.07.2015 and the investigation is going on and not yet completed. During the course of investigation, the petitioner wants to conduct an agitation before AKG Thidal, Cumbum. Admittedly, AKG Thidal, is not coming within the jurisdiction of the third respondent police station. But, in the impugned order it was wrongly mentioned. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that Rajendran moved anticipatory bail with an averment that he had gone to the house of the de-facto complainant and demanded money and that there was a wordy quarrel between them, but the learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the same. 8. Be that as it may, the investigation is under process. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that Rajendran moved anticipatory bail with an averment that he had gone to the house of the de-facto complainant and demanded money and that there was a wordy quarrel between them, but the learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the same. 8. Be that as it may, the investigation is under process. The question as to whether the said Rajendran had gone to the place of 6 occurrence has to be decided only after investigation. So, it is premature to conduct agitation while the investigation is going on. It is true that every person is having the freedom of speech and expression. But the freedom of speech and expression should not interfere with the investigation. So, the judgment in S.Sivabalan's case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand. 9. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.