Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)

S. Jeevanantham vs State Through Inspector Of Police, Tn on 21 April, 2004

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the 1st petitioner is the founder and the President of Sudhesi Makkal Thondu Iyakam which is duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, carrying on various activities towards social welfare and awareness in and around Virudhunagar District. On 18.04.2016, the petitioners canvassed about the awareness of NOTA and its significance to the public in Balavanatham Vadakupatti Bus Stop and at that point of time, the 2nd respondent/Mr.Shanmugaraj who is a politician along with his party members asked them to stop such canvassing and when they refused to do so, as a ruling party, they have instructed the 1st respondent/police to register a case. Accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.138 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 143 and 188 IPC on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioners caused disturbance to the free flow of public on the road from Virudhunagar to Aruppukottai. The learned counsel http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12657 of 2020 would further state that on the face of FIR, it does not make out any offence and that the issue in the present case is covered by the decisions of this Court in CRL.OP(MD)No.3770 of 2012 dated 06.06.2018 and Jeevanantham vs. State reported in 2018 (2) K.W. (Crl) 606.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 115 - Full Document
1