Rs Barathi mp.quash petition

          MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION

(Filed under Section 482 CrPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl. OP. No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Accused
Vs

  1. The State rep. by
    Inspector of Police,
    E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
    Chennai- 600 018. …Respondent/ Complainant
  2. Kalyana Sundaram
    Athithamilar Makkal Katchi,
    No.1/8A, Managaratchi Kudiyiruppu,
    Avaniyapuram, Madurai – 625012.
    …Respondent/Defacto Complainant

QUASH PETITION

The Petitioner above named humbly begs to submit as follows:

The address for service of all notices and processes on the Petitioner is that of his Counsel M/s. R.GIRIRAJAN, R.NEELAKANDAN & E.RAJ THILAK Advocates, 309 Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104.

  1. The Petitioner submits that he is aggrieved by the registration of FIR by the 1st Respondent in Cr. No. 119 of 2020 for alleged offences u/s 3 (1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
  2. The Petitioner submits that it is alleged in the complaint as follows:

i. It is alleged in the FIR that on 15.02.2020, an event had been organized by Kalaignar Reading Circle. It is further alleged that the Petitioner addressed the meeting.

ii. It is alleged that during the event Mr.R.S. Bharathi had made disrespectful remarks about members of the oppressed classes stating that the appointment of Hon’ble Justice A. Varadarajan and other 7 or 8 appointments of Judges of the High Court from Scheduled Castes were due to the benevolence of the Dravidian Movement.

iii. The extract of the speech made by the Petitioner and extracted in the complaint is as follows:

                          நான் ஒப்பனா சொல்றேன். ஒரு ஹரிசன் கூட வடமாநிலத்தில் அதுவும் மத்திய பிரதேசத்தில் High Court Judge ஆக இருந்தது கிடையாது. ஆனால் தமிழ் நாட்டிலே கலைஞர் ஆட்சிக்கு வந்த பிறகு வரதராஜனை உட்கார வைத்தார். அதற்கு பிறகு ஆதி திராவிட சமூகத்தை சேர்ந்த 7, 8 பேர் நீதிபதியாக இருந்தார்கள் என்றால் அது திராவிட இயக்கம் போட்ட பிச்சை

iv. It is alleged that the above speech disrespects late Hon’ble Justice A. Varadarajan who is held in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and is an inspiration to thousands of lawyers.

v. It is alleged that the speech made by the Petitioner clearly promotes feeling of enmity, hatred, jealously and ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes.

The Petitioner submits that, left with no other alternative efficacious remedy, he is approaching this Hon’ble Court under S. 482 CrPC to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 119 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police on the following among other

GROUNDS

A. It is submitted that the instant complaint has been given after a delay of one month and there is no explanation for the delay. It is further submitted that the speech given by the Petitioner was well publicised since the day he gave the speech and the delay in filing the complaint indicates the mala fides actuating the de facto complainant’s actions.

B. It is submitted that the complaint given against the Petitioner selectively extracts a few lines from a speech given by him, thus giving a misleading picture of the speech and eliminating the context behind his words.

C. It is submitted that it is always the sound practice of the courts to read any speech in full and gather the intent of the speaker from the expressions used in the speech as a whole.

D. It is submitted that the FIR nitpicks a few words here and there and assigns motives to stray sentences. It is further submitted that the Respondent Police ought to have perused the whole speech without relying on the misleading extracts furnished by the de facto complainant.

E. It is submitted that the complaint must show prima facie that commission of cognizable offence has occurred and without perusal of the entire speech, the Respondent Police has registered the FIR without coming to such prima facie conclusion about commission of the offence.

F. It is submitted the Petitioner may have used infelicitous language or even language that caused offence to some members of the public but in the absence of the specific intent mentioned in the statute, the speech of the Petitioner, howsoever disagreeable, cannot be a ground for registration of FIR.

G. It is submitted that the entirety of the FIR consists of the surmises, inferences and conclusions drawn by the de facto complainant himself without reference to the actual speech and none of the motives he ascribes to the Petitioner were expressed by the Petitioner or present in the words used by him.

H. It is submitted that prima facie satisfaction about the elements of the offence can be gathered only on an objective and reasonable basis and not on the perception of just one person among the thousands of persons who heard the speech of the Petitioner.

I. It is submitted that provisions of S. 3(1)(u) and (v) of the Act are below:

(u) by words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(v) by words either written or spoken or by any other means disrespects any late person held in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

J. It is submitted that, with regard to S. 3(1)(u) of the Act, even according to the extract furnished in the complaint, the Petitioner has no made statements about members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a whole or any part of those communities.

K. It is submitted that, further, there is a requirement that must be “against” those communities and no fair interpretation of the words used by the Petitioner can lead to the inference that the Petitioner harboured any intent to “promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will” against members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

L. It is submitted that S. 3(1)(v) is unconstitutional under Art. 19(1)(a) as the definition of the offence impermissibly restricts speech without reference to any grounds mentioned in Art. 19(2). It is further submitted that the restriction is also not content neutral and arbitrarily engages in viewpoint discrimination without a sufficiently weighty constitutional justification.

M. It is submitted that the provision is also unconstitutional under Art. 14 and 21 as the definition of the offence is unconstitutionally vague i.e. the term “disrespects” furnishes no standard for judicial interpretation.

N. It is submitted that even assuming that the said provision is constitutional, the act of the Petitioner does not fall within its confines.

O. It is submitted that the Petitioner has simply sought to give credit to the Dravidian movement for the appointment of judges from among the members of the Scheduled Castes and more particularly to Thiru. M. Karunanidhi, in the case of late Justice A. Varadarajan. The Petitioner’s remarks were not intended to or in fact disrespect Justice A. Varadarajan or any other honourable judge.

P. It is submitted that the Petitioner did not state or imply that Justice A. Varadarajan or any other honourable judge lacked merit to hold the office to which they were appointed. It is further submitted that is an unwarranted inference drawn by the de facto complainant for which there is no basis in the speech given by the Petitioner.

Q. It is submitted that, in contrast, that was the exact stereotype that the Petitioner was trying to demolish. The Petitioner drew a contrast with northern states and specifically sought to make a point that, in those states, members of Scheduled Castes were not appointed as judges in those states despite possessing necessary qualifications and in Tamil Nadu, numerous judges belonging to the Scheduled Cates have been appointed without any discrimination on the basis of caste.

In these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the FIR in Crime No.119 of 2020 on the file of the 1st Respondent till the disposal of the Crl.OP.No. of 2020 and thus render justice.

In these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records FIR in Crime No. 119 of 2020 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this the Day of March 2020

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

 MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS  PETITION

(Filed under Section 482 CrPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.MP.No. of 2020
In
Crl.OP.No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused
Vs

  1. The State rep. by
    Inspector of Police,
    E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
    Chennai- 600 018.
    …Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant
  2. Kalyana Sundaram
    Athithamilar Makkal Katchi,
    No.1/8A, Managaratchi Kudiyiruppu,
    Avaniyapuram, Madurai – 625012. …Respondent/Respondent/Defacto Complainant

STAY PETITION

The Petitioner above named humbly begs to submit as follows:

The address for service of all notices and processes on the Petitioner is that of his Counsel M/s. R.GIRIRAJAN, R.NEELAKANDAN & E.RAJ THILAK Advocates, 309 Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104.
For the reasons stated in the Criminal Original Petition, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the FIR in Crime No.119 of 2020 on the file of the 1st Respondent till the disposal of the Crl.OP.No. of 2020 and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai On this the day March 2020

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl. OP. No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Accused
Vs

  1. The State rep. by
    Inspector of Police,
    E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
    Chennai- 600 018. …Respondent/ Complainant
  2. Kalyana Sundaram
    Athithamilar Makkal Katchi,
    No.1/8A, Managaratchi Kudiyiruppu,
    Avaniyapuram, Madurai – 625012.
    …Respondent/Defacto Complainant

INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS

S.No DATE DESCRIPTION
PAGE NO.

  1. 12.03.2020
    FIR in Crime. No. 119 of 2020

The above documents are certified to be true copies of their originals.

Dated at Chennai on this the Day of March 2020

    COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl. OP. No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Accused
Vs

The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai- 600 018.

                    …Respondent/ Complainant

QUASH PETITION

M/s. M/s. R.GIRIRAJAN, R.NEELAKANDAN &
E.RAJ THILAK
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Cell. 8122629217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.MP.No. of 2020
in
Crl. OP. No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Accused
Vs

The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai- 600 018.

                    …Respondent/ Complainant

STAY PETITION

M/s. M/s. R.GIRIRAJAN, R.NEELAKANDAN &
E.RAJ THILAK
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Cell. 8122629217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl. OP. No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Accused
Vs

The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai- 600 018.

                    …Respondent/ Complainant

INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS

M/s. M/s. R.GIRIRAJAN, R.NEELAKANDAN &
E.RAJ THILAK
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Cell. 8122629217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl. OP. No. of 2020
in
Crime No. 119 of 2020
(On the file of the Respondent Police)

R.S.Bharathi, (M/A- 73 years)
S/o D.J.Raman,
18, 29th street, Thillai Ganga Nagar,
Nanganallur,
Chennai- 600 061.
…Petitioner/Accused
Vs

The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai- 600 018.

                    …Respondent/ Complainant

FIR

M/s. M/s. R.GIRIRAJAN, R.NEELAKANDAN &
E.RAJ THILAK
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Cell. 8122629217

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com