LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-15

K.G.UTHAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE

Decided On January 07, 2015
K.G.Uthayakumar Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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 judgement in Dhinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs State of Gujarat and others, 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.