Madras High Court
S.Karunaas vs State Rep By on 25 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P(MD).No.6881 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD).No.4758 of 2022
S.Karunaas ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State Rep by,
Inspector of Police,
Thiruvadanai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
2. Mr.Uthandasamy
Village Administrative Officer,
Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram. .....Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,to
call for records in STC.No.186 of 2022 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate-I, Ramanathapuram and quash the same .
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvam
For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for records in
STC.No.186 of 2022 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Ramanathapuram in Crime No.164 of 2022 and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2016, the petitioner
herein has organised an Election Advisory Meeting between 5.00 P.M. and 6.00
P.M., at Twin Bungalow, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner
being an AIADMK candidate, his party members erected banners/Advertisement
board near the meeting place, bus stand, SBI Bank, Thiruvandani Taluk Office
and other public places. Hence, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had filed
a complaint and FIR in Crime No.164 of 2021 for offence under Section 4A(1b) of
the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act,1959 was
registered. The petitioner, who is the sole accused in S.T.C.No.186 of 2022, has
been charged for offences under Section 4A(1b) and 4(B) of the Tamil Nadu Open
Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the
leading actor in Tamil Film Industry. During the year 2016, he contested in MLA
Election in Thiruvadanai Constituency, for which, he had attended the meeting
conducted by the cadres. He would also submit that the petitioner is not aware of
persons, who have erected the banners in public places. He would further submit
that the defacto complainant/VAO, without conducting any enquiry, had filed a
complaint before the respondent police. He would also submit that there is no
averment as against the petitioner that he had instructed anyone to erect banners as
alleged by the prosecution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in
similar circumstances,this Court in the case of T.A.Thirumalai Balaji Vs State
and another in Crl.O.P.(MD).7796 of 2012 finding no averment to implicate the
petitioner, and he being the party leader had quashed the proceedings vide order
dated 17.11.2017. He would submit that the petitioner is similarly placed.
5. The 1st respondent had filed a detailed counter and in the counter, it has
been stated that the 1st respondent had examined the defacto complainant/VAO,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thiru.Moorthy, Village Assistant and two other independent witnesses.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner
contested in the 2016 General Electionin Thiruvadanai constituency. During the
election, he had conducted the pre-election meeting and during that time, the
hoardings were fixed all along in several places.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
8. It is relevant to extract the Paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order of this
Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7796 of 2012 dated 17.11.2017 which reads as follows:
6. Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places
(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, provides for penalty
for unauthorised disfigurement by advertisement. The said
provision is extracted hereunder:
“4.(1) Penalty for unauthorised disfigurement by
advertisement- Subject to the provisions of Section 4A, whoever
affixes to or inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
view any advertisement without the written consent of the owner
or occupier or person in management of the property in which
such place is situated shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three months
or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with
both.”
7. A reading of the above Section would clearly show that
whoever affixes to or inscribes or exhibits on any place open to
public view any advertisement without the written consent of the
owner or occupier or person in management of the property in
which such place is situated shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three months or with fine which may extend to two hundred
rupees, or with both.
8. In this context, it is relevant to extract below the
relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC866][AIR p.869,
para6].
“(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the proceedings
e.g.want of sanction:
“(ii) where the allegations in the first information report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged:
“(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”
9. Admittedly, there is no allegation against the petitioner
that he involved in the alleged activity, warranting the penalty
under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is one thing to say that the
petitioner was a candidate in the Election and another thing to
say is that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section
4(1) of the Act without any material for such complaint.
Therefore, in the absence of any averment to implicate the
petitioner, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be
sustained.
9. This Court in a similar circumstances in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7796 of 2012,
had quashed the proceedings. The petitioner is also a candidate in the election.
There is no averment to show that the petitioner erected the banners and left it un
removed. In such circumstances, the proceedings pending before the Judicial
Magistrate No.1 Ramanathapuram is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge
sheet in STC.No.186 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-I, Ramanathapuram, is quashed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.04.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
nr/nti
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Ramanathapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvadanai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
nr/nti
Crl.O.P(MD).No.6881 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD).No.4758 of 2022
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
