Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 25
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
K.G. Uthayakumar
Versus
The State, rep. by The Superintendent of Police & Another
Crl.O.P(MD)No. 10752 of 2014
Decided on: 07-01-2015
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for J. Shabu Jose, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side).
For the Intervenor:Veerakathiravan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 - Sections 125 to 138 – Indian Penal Code - Section 171 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 154 – Conduct of Elections - Claim of compensation – First Information Report – Petitioner who claims to be AIADMK Secretary and Election In- charge for Constituency contends that one and others belonging to DMK party who came to District for parliament election campaign stayed in Public Works Department building and violated Election Commission Code - Election Officer was immediately informed about violation by a complaint to second respondent and another complaint to first respondent to take action against said persons - So far no action has been taken – Hence petitioner has come before this Court seeking direction to register FIR against proposed accused - Senior counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that proposed accused in violation of Model Code of Conduct of Elections stayed at Public Works Departments building during elections campaign - He referred to Model Code of conduct in this regard - Proposed accused committed offence under Section 171 of IPC - This is an election offence - Under Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code anybody can give complaint to police station District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer in this regard - A judgment in State of Gujarat and others reported was relied upon by Senior counsel for petitioner opposing hearing of proposed accused - Therefore he seeks for a direction to second respondent to register complaint against proposed accused – Held, One should not forget fact that many cadres are die hard cadres – Unless leaders themselves decide to condemn cadres for hate politics and encourage them to practice healthy politics present ugly trend cannot be put an end - Cadres should be taught about values of democracy and not to indulge in filing frivolous cases like case on hand - Then only onslaught on democracy at least could be contained if not prevented - This role of election Commission does not end with conducting of election and it should continue to have vigil on actions and functioning of political parties in country even after elections - Any instance of hate speech and action due to hate politics should be enquired appropriate action should be taken against party or at least directions should be given to concerned party to suspend guilty cadre from party for a definite period - This kind of action will go long way to prevent unhealthy political action - This petition is nothing but a facet of hate politics - No doubt it is for opposite camp to watch other camp during election time for violation of Model Code of Conduct – However it does not mean that stay of a leader for minutes in I.B. for rest can be termed as a violation unless there was a public meeting or I.B. was used as election office - Petitioner should have verified purpose of stay and thereafter should have given complaints - This Court is of opinion that this petition has been filed only to claim publicity and to seek attention and recognition from top leaders - This kind of trend nowadays is common in all parties and that is reason why cadres and lower level leaders of political parties are indulging in this kind of gimmicks to be noted by leadership - Sometimes such acts also get rewards and naturally cadres and lower level leaders are tempted to follow such mean methods which are not good for healthy politics - Hence this Court expects top leaders of political parties to shun hate politics and disapprove and condemn hate speeches actions by not recognizing them to uphold democratic principles - Then only political culture would be healthy in consonance with democratic values – Order accordingly
1. ECHO OF HATE POLITICS is heard in this case. Hate politics is like an octopus which has many tentacles like defamatory speeches, malicious writings, filing vexatious cases against the opposite parties and the leaders, political murders, physical attacks etc. It is disheartening to note that hate politics is prevalent throughout India and Tamil Nadu is not an exception. Some of the political parties who are supposed to work for the common man are responsible for this adversarial atmosphere.
2. The petitioner, who claims to be AIADMK Secretary and Election In- charge for Vilavankodu Constituency contends that on 14.03.2014 at about 04.15 p.m one M.K.Stalin and others belonging to DMK party, who came to Kanyakumari District for parliament election campaign, stayed in Public Works Department building at Kuzhithurai and violated the Election Commission Code; The Election Officer was immediately informed about the violation by a complaint dated 14.03.2014 to the second respondent and another complaint to the first respondent on 15.03.2014 to take action against the said persons. So far no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking direction to register FIR against the proposed accused.
3. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the proposed accused in violation of Model Code of Conduct of Elections stayed at Public Works Department's building, during elections campaign. He referred to Model Code of conduct in this regard. The proposed accused committed offence under Section 171 of IPC. This is an election offence. Under Section 154 Cr.P.C, anybody can give complaint to the police station, District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer in this regard. A judgment in Dhinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2014 (4) SCC 626 was relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner opposing the hearing of the proposed accused. Therefore, he seeks for a direction to the second respondent to register the complaint against the proposed accused.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would contend that no offence is made out to register the complaint; Section 188 of IPC can be invoked only by the lawful authority, namely, Election Commission, through procedure under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and not by an individual; Though the District Collector sought for particulars from the petitioner regarding his complaint, he failed to produce the same; The police cannot enquire into the election disputes or election offences under Sections 125 to 138 of the Representation of the People's Act, 1950, which defines electoral offence and this case does not come under any of the offences; Disobedience of election code cannot become an offence;
Therefore, Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot be invoked by the petitioner, the counsel submitted. He would rely upon a judgment in P.D.Lakhani and another vs. State of Punjab dated 22.4.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that when a complaint was not made by an appropriate Public Servant, the Court will have no jurisdiction in respect thereof and when Section contemplates that complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned, there is no compliance of law.
5. Mr.K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the complaint given to the police was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn sent the same to the District Collector and he directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry was conducted on 24.07.2014.
Heard the parties and perused the records.
6. According to the petitioner, the proposed accused/intervenor in violation of the Model Code of Conduct, stayed in Public Works Department, Kuzhithurai at 04.15 p.m on 14.03.2013. A perusal of the records filed by the petitioner, especially, the representation given by the petitioner to the second
