IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.O.P.No.1670 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1.Henry Tiphagne 2.Nizamuddin 3.Jaishankar 4.R.Babu 5.Balakrishnan 6.Murugappan 7.Raja Thandavarayan 8.Vaijayanthimala 9.Thirunavukkarasu 10.Appaji 11.Balamurugan 12.Devanathan 13.Chandrasekar 14.Sarkarias 15.Albert 16.Sivasankar ...Petitioners -Vs- The Inspector of Police Cuddalore N.T.Police Station ...Respondent Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of charge sheet in C.C.No.100 of 2005 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.Sivam Sivanandraj For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ***** O R D E R
The petitioners seek to quash proceedings pending in C.C.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore.
2.The said case flows from a complaint dated 11.10.2004 registered in Crime No.716 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police. The occurrence alleged is that a women police training programme conducted on 11.10.2004 at Cuddalore Town Hall was disrupted by the petitioners herein, who raised slogans against the police personnel and called for beating up of the police, despite being warned that the assembly of the accused ought to be dispersed since a promulgate order was in force. The accused had gone about their wrongful actions. Thus, the case came to be registered under Sections 147, 188, 354, 353 and 506(i) IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 147, 188, 354, 353 and 506(i) IPC r/w. 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law and Amendment Act.
3.In support of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners informs that the accused persons and particularly, the 1st petitioner was a member of the National Core Group of Tamil Nadu attached to the Human Rights Commission and was functioning as Executive Director of People’s Watch Tamilnadu and Convener of “Campaign Against Torture”. The 2nd petitioner was the Convener of the Cuddalore district and was taking steps to conduct a computer training programme at Cuddalore on 11.10.2004 at 11 a.m. and to hold press meet in the afternoon to highlight the human rights violations noticed in Cuddalore district. After ascertaining the availability of the town hall of the Cuddalore Municipality on 11.10.2004, he had given a requisition to the manager thereof to reserve it for the proposed meeting, which duly was recorded in the engagements diary maintained by such manager.
4.The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:
“The claim of the prosecution that Prohibitory Order dated 28.09.2004 under Section 30 of Police Act 1861 had been promulgated by T.K.Ferozkhan Abduallah Deputy Superintendent, Cuddalore to prevent breach of peace and the danger to the public tranquility and no processions meetings, Organisations, Dharnas, Demonstrations and Picketings would be permitted without any permission well in advance from the Deputy Superintendent of Police Cuddalore Division renders the Charge sheet taken on file as C.C.No.100 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate Cuddalore not valid in law. Further the above Prohibitory Order dated 28.09.2004 was declared to have remained in force from 00.00 hours 28.09.2004 to 12.10.2004 both days inclusive. The organizations “Campaign Against Torture”, cannot be reckoned as Communal Organisation or as Political Party to attract the Order dated 28.09.2004 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Cuddalore. The Meeting of Office Bearers of the Organisation “Campaign Against Torture” in the closed premises Town Hall given on rent cannot be reckoned as Procession or Public Meeting or Demonstration visualized in the Order dated 28.09.2004 issued under Section 30(2) in the Police Act 1861. As per Section 30 of the Police Act the Deputy Superintendent of Police Cuddalore on being satisfied that the occasion requires to order that no Procession, Meetings, Organizations, Dharnas, Demonstrations and Picketings would be permitted without any permission. The petitioners respectfully submit that the Meeting of the Office Bearers of the “Campaign Against Torture” fixed to be held at 10.30 A.M. on 11.10.2004 in the Town hall given on rent by the Municipality could never be construed to attract the Prohibitory Order dated 28.09.2004 issued under Section 30(2). It is respectfully submitted that Section 30 regulates Public Assemblies and Processions and licensing the same. The Sub Section 30(2) stipulates that collection of an assembly in any such public place if it would likely to cause breach of peace, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Cuddalore could issue Special Notice calling the persons convening or collecting such assembly to apply for license. The above Statutory Provisions had been flagrantly violated. The above legal infirmities render the case C.C.No.100 of 2005 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.11, Cuddalore liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.”
5.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that a valid promulgation had been issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore on 28.09.2004 which reads as follows:
“ORDER: In view of the existing Law and Order situation in connection with communal tension and as some communal organisation and political parties have planned to organize procession, public meetings, demonstrations, etc. It is opined that if such procession, demonstration etc. are not regulated, it will result in breach of peace and danger to public tranquility. It is expedient to promulgate regulatory Order under Section 30(2) Police Act 1861, Order under Section 30(2) Police Act 1861 is promulgated in Cuddalore Sub-Division on with concurrence of the Revenue Divisional Officer I and Executive First Class Magistrate, Cuddalore. By this order No procession, meetings organisation, dharna, demonstrations and picketing will be permitted without any permission well in advance from the under signed.
2) However this will not be applicable to any religious marriage or ceremonies.
3) This order will be enforced from the 00.00 hrs. 28.09.2004 to 12.10.2004 both days inclusive.
4)Given under my hand and seal this day of 28.09.2004.
Deputy Supdt. of Police,
Cuddalore”
7.The 2nd petitioner had sought permission for conduct of meeting in the town hall under letter dated 07.10.2004 which upon due consideration had been rejected by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore under order dated 11.10.2004. The same had been communicated and pasted at the residential premises of the 2nd petitioner on the morning of 11.10.2004. Thus, it was apparent that the accused had indulged in unlawful activities having full knowledge of the promulgation order in force. The very application made by the 2nd petitioner on 07.10.2004 would be proof of such knowledge. Not only the petitioners acted in contravention of the promulgation order, they also had indulged in commission of criminal offences. The respondent has filed a charge sheet upon due investigation and the matter was now pending trial. The validity or otherwise of the promulgation order as also the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case could be canvassed at the stage of trial and this Court would now not interfere in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
8.Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds itself unable to accept the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners that there is no material in support of the charge sheet filed in the case. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) the validity or otherwise of the promulgation order as also the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case could be canvassed at the stage of trial, this Court also is unable to accept for the present that no offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act stands made out against the petitioners. This Court dismiss the Criminal Original Petition leaving it open to the petitioners to canvass all grounds in support of their case before the lower Court and in the course of trial.
9.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.03.2010
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore
2.The Inspector of Police
Cuddalore N.T.Police Station.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.T.SELVAM, J.
gm
CRL.O.P.No.1670 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007
30.03.2010