Tamil Nadu: Proceedings against Anbumani Ramadoss stayed

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Dec 8, 2017, 6:00 am IST
Updated Dec 8, 2017, 6:00 am IST
The allegations were baseless and vexatious and politically motivated.
Madras High Court
 Madras High Court

Chennai: Madras High Court on Thursday stayed all further proceedings pending against PMK youth wing leader and MP Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, before the  judicial magistrate-I, Dharmapuri, in connection with threatening and preventing a tahsildar from discharging his official function on April 22, 2014. Justice M.S. Ramesh, who granted the interim stay, also dispensed with his personal appearance before the JM-I, Dharmapuri and posted to Janu-ary 8, further hearing of the petition filed by Anbumani Ramadoss, which sought to quash the proceedings pending before the JM-I, Dharmapuri.

According to Ramadoss, he has been charge sheeted by police for offences under section 147, 188, 294 (b), 341, 353, 171 (H), 279, 336, 506 (i) IPC and 34 IPC. It was alleged that the defacto complainant Gunasekaran, a Tahsildar in Dharmapuri district, made a complaint before the Dharmapuri police stating that while he was discharging his official duty, he was prevented by the accused and they threatened him with dire consequences. The allegations were baseless and vexatious and politically motivated. In order to curtail his political movements, this false case has been foisted against him. The police laid a charge sheet with an ulterior motive to tarnish his image and reputation in the eye of the public and to demean his political career, he added.

 

He contended that the complainant was not having any knowledge about the involvement of the petitioner as per the averments made in the complaint and also accepting the entire prosecution to be true, there was no averment whatsoever that the petitioner directed the other accused to commit the alleged offences. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint were surmises and conjectures and it was liable to be set aside. The complainant himself admitted that the petitioner was in election campaign at some other place and the party cadres alone picked up quarrel with him. There were no materials to show that the petitioner has directed them to obstruct the public servant from discharging his duty. The statement of prosecution witnesses also did not disclose the direct or indirect participation of the petitioner. They categorically speak about the involvement of the persons who picked up wordy quarrel with the complainant, he added.





ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT