1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11022 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 J.Veera Subash .. Petitioner Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Usilampatti Town Police Station Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District in crime No.185 of 2011 .. Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in crime No.185 of 2011on the file of the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Selvam For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, G.A., (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in crime No.185 of 2011on the file of the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a case has been registered against the petitioner by the respondent police in crime No.185 of 2011 for an offence under Section 4-AA of TNOPPD Act on 28.03.2011. He would further submit that the petitioner is the driver and he possess a valid driving licence bearing No.TN 58 20110000381. He would further submit that the petitioner has parked his vehicle on the side of Peraiyur Road at Usilampatti around 09.30 a.m. and the vehicle was carrying a flag of “PIRAMALAI KALLAR MURPOKKU ILAIGNAR PERAVAI” in which the owner of the car is one of the sympathizers. He would further submit that the said “PIRAMALAI KALLAR MURPOKKU ILAIGNAR PERAVAI” is not a political party and it was not campaigning in support of any political party and on the other hand, it is only an organization registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Act. 3.He would further submit that the respondent police came to the spot and without any formal enquiry, they seized the car and registered a case without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and hence, he has come forward with the application stating that the ingredients of Section 4-AA of TNOPPD Act is not prima facie made out. He would further submit that in Section 2(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1959, Motor Vehicle has been defined as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 “motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle as defined in clause (28) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and used for road transport service by any State Transport Undertaking” He would further submit that, here, it is a private vehicle belongs to the owner of the accused/petitioner and hence the offence is not attracted under Section 4-AA of TNOPPD Act and hence, he prayed for the quashment of the proceeding against the petitioner. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) and perused the materials available on record. 5.As per the F.I.R., a case has been registered against the accused/petitioner for the offence under Section 4-AA of TNOPPD Act in crime No.185 of 2011 by the respondent police. Perusal of F.I.R., it has been stated that the petitioner is using the flag of “PIRAMALAI KALLAR MURPOKKU ILAIGNAR PERAVAI” in the car. 6.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the meaning of Motor Vehicle, which has been defined under Section 2(aa) of TNOPPD Act, as follows: “Motor Vehicle” means a motor vehicle as defined in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and used for road transport service by any State Transport undertaking.” In that it was specifically mentioned that “ used for road transport service by any State Transport undertaking”. But, admittedly, in this case, the vehicle is a private vehicle and hence, the vehicle is not a motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(aa) of TNOPPD Act. 7.It is also appropriate to consider Section 4-AA of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1959, which would run thus: “4-AA. Prohibition of pasting of posters and fixing of thatty boards, etc. on motor vehicle:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, 3A, 4 or 4-A or any other provisions of this Act, or any law for the time being in force, no person shall (a) affix, to or inscribe or exhibit on, any motor vehicle, any poster or any effigy, or any bill, notice, document, paper or other thing containing any words, signs or visible representations: or (b) put up or fix any thatty board or board supported on, or attached to, any post, pole, standard, framework or other support wholly or in any part upon or over any motor vehicle; Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section apply to any poster or advertisement or thatty board of the State Government, on any motor vehicle. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), any officer authorised by the Chairman of the State Transport Undertaking concerned, may grant permission to any person to put up or fix any thatty board on any motor vehicle, subject to such conditions and for such period as may be specified in such permission; Provided that the officer so authorised may refuse to grant permission, if he considers the such display of thatty boards may lead to disfigurement of damage or deteriorate the effective use of the motor vehicle. (3) Any person aggrieved by anu decision of the officer referred to in sub-section (2) in refusing to grant permission, may appeal to the State Government and the decision of the State Government, onsuch appeal, shall be final. (4) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which such extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. (5) Any offence punishable under sub-section (4) may be tried in a summary way and the provisions of section 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial. 8.Considering the said acts along with the facts of the present case, since the vehicle is belonging to an individual, who is not belonging to any political party, it contained only a flag of “PIRAMALAI KALLAR MURPOKKU ILAIGNAR PERAVAI” which is not a contesting party in the election and hence, there is no need to obtain permission from the returning Officer for using the flag at their vehicle and hence, I am of the view that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner and hence, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 9.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in crime No.185 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District against the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Inspector of Police Usilampatti Town Police Station Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Arul Pre-Delivery order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11022 of 2011 19.09.2011 TR :03.10.2011: 4p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/