E JEEVANKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a complainant in Crime No. 60 of 2009 on the file of Vilathikulam Police Station. He lodged a complaint with the said police station alleging that he was the contesting candidate for the Parliamentary Election in Thoothukudi constitutency, for that, on 28-4-2009, at about 7.45 p.m., while he was in election campaign at Kulathur in his van, the Respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, immediately (sic) towards inside the van and arrested hint by. pointed his hand at him and saying that (Vernacular matter omitted......... Ed.) and threatened him to leave the place at once; that about 300 people gathered there; that he is Central Secretary for Bahujan Samaj Party for the State; that the Respondent berated him in the presence of the public by saying his caste name; that he belongs to Backward Community and that necessary action may be taken. A case was registered under Section 3(1)(vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) On the same date, the second Respondent had also laid a complaint with Eppothumvendran Police Station against this Petitioner, which was registered in Crime No. 59 of 2009, in which he has alleged that while he was patrolling the campaigning area, the candidate for the Parliament Constituency by name Jeevankumar, came in an open jeep and two other cars also accompanied; that without any prior notice, he was engaged in the political campaign; that his speeches were likely to bring about ill-will between certain communities; that at about 20.15 hours, the Petitioner stopped his speech and proceeded, at that time, the Respondent asked him not to canvass further, for which, the Petitioner told that the Respondent belongs to Nadar Community and hence, he does not like the people belonging to Schedule Caste Community; that the Petitioner called the other persons available there to come; that about 15 members under the leadership of one Rajapandi asked the Respondent, how can he ask their candidate to stop the speech and they also abused the police, thereby they prevented him from discharging the official duty and also marred public peace. FIR was registered under Sections 153(A)(1)(2); 505(1)(C) and 353 of IPC in Crime No. 59 of 2009.

(3.) Both the cases were taken up for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam. As far as Crime No. 60 of 2009, registered at the instance of the Petitioner is concerned, the Deputy Superintendent of Police laid a final report before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vilathukulam stating that the case may be closed as mistake of fact. Before preferring this report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has also obtained an opinion from the District Vigilance Committee (Vernacular matter omitted...... Ed.), which in its meeting dated 8-9-2009 adopted a resolution that this case has to be referred as mistake of fact. The report of the Investigating Officer along with the opinion from the Special Public Prosecutor, Tirunelveli, was perused by the said Committee, which is evident from the contents of the decision. The said Committee consists of the following officials and members' from the public:-