Madras High Court
Arun vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 November, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.17173 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10152 & 10153 of 2019
Arun ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police
Valliyoor Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
Cr.No.233 of 2017.
2.C.Murugan
Special Sub Inspector of Police
Panagudi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.
711 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019
ORDER
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.711 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
2. The Petitioner is charged for an offence under Section 4A (1a) of Tamil Nadu Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1959. It is alleged that on 25.07.2017, the 2nd respondent/ Special Sub Inspector of Police as well as two constables were deputed to surveillance in Valliyoor Town, at that time, they found that the petitioner said to have affixed posters on the wall belongs to Panchayat Officer which depicts objectionable slogans and advertisement against the Inspector/ Stephen Jose and Sub Inspector / Balakrishnan, on enquiry, the defacto complainant came to found that the Petitioner alone has affixed posters and the Petitioner without getting any permission, he is going to conduct the procession on 26.07.2017. Therefore, the respondent police registered the complaint in Crime No.233 of 2017 as against the Petitioner.
3. Aggrieved at taking cognizance of the charge sheet, the Petitioner are before this Court to quash the same on the ground that 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019 the prosecution is malicious and the Petitioner are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India and he has not propagated any offending slogans.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would draw this Court's attention to Section 4A (1a) of the Tamil Nadu Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1959. He submitted that the offence will be attracted only if any 'objectionable advertisement' is made in any place open to public view. The learned counsel submitted that freedom of speech and expression is the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of india and relied on a decision reported in AIR 1959 Allahabad 101 (Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar).
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the Petitioner affixed the poster without any permission or consent condemning the Tamil Nadu Government and the poster affixed by the Petitioner did not contain any details as to where it was printed. It is further stated that if any person 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 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019 property, is liable to be punished under Sec.4A (1a) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. It is also stated that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file in S.T.C.No.711 of 2018. At this stage, there is no necessity to quash the proceedings.
6. Heard and perused the materials available on record.
7. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution reads as follows:
"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc (1) All citizens shall have the right :-
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
8. However, this guarantee is subject to the reasonable restrictions which is indicated in clause (ii) of the Article.
9. Sec.2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 defines objectionable advertisements which reads as follows:
""(b) "Objectionable advertisement"
means any advertisement which is likely to;
(i) incite any person to commit murder, sabotage or any offence involving violence; or
(ii) seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the police forces from his allegiance or his duty or prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the discipline of any such force or
(iii) incite any section of the citizens of India; or which
(iv) is deliberately intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of India by insulting or blaspheming or profaning the religion or the religiious beliefs of that class; or (v) is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail;
(vi) obstructs pedestrian traffic 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019
10. However, the explanation would go to show that an advertisement shall not be deemed to be objectionable merely because words or signs visible representations are used, (1) expressing disapprobation or criticism of any law or of any policy or administrative action of the Government with a view to obtain its alteration or redress by lawful means; (2) criticising any social or religious practices without malicious intention and with; honest view to promote social or religious reform or social justice.
11. Sec.3 of the Act reads as follows:
"Penalty for disfigurement by objectionable advertisement:-
Whoever affixes to, or inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to public view any objectionable advertisement shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both".
12. Therefore, in order to constitute an offence under Sec.3 of the Act, it should be alleged that the accused affixed or inscribed or exhibited any objectionable advertisement on any place open to public view.
6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019
13. This Court in the judgment in Venkatesha Vs. State reported in (2011 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 37), in similar circumstances has discussed in detail and quashed the proceedings. Therefore, the pendency of such proceedings is only abuse of process of law which is liable to be quashed accordingly, it is quashed.
14. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.711 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Ls 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17173 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Ls To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
2.The Inspector of Police Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No.17173 of 2019 21.11.2019 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in