Karnataka businessman killed, wife critically injured in Dubai road mishap

Chennai, Jul 25: Two weeks after a 62-year-old widow accused him of harassment, including urinating outside her house, the Chennai Police on Saturday registered an FIR against ABVP national president Dr Subbiah Shanmugam.

Dr Shanmugam, Professor and HOD, Department of Surgical Oncology, Kilpauk Medical College and Government Royapettah Hospital, has been booked under sections 271 (disobedience to quarantine rule) and 427 (mischief causing damage) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Prevention Act.

The FIR was lodged exactly two weeks after the woman’s relative Balaji Vijayaraghavan filed a complaint with the Adambakkam police accusing Dr Shanmugam of harassing his aunt, who is living alone in her apartment following her husband’s death last year, following an argument over a parking slot. 

The action came after Vijayaraghavan alleged that the police were not filing an FIR due to the ABVP functionary’s “political connections.”

Dr Shanmugam and the woman were living in the same apartment complex in Nanganallur and an argument broke between them over a parking slot.

“He wanted to use our parking lot. We agreed but demanded a nominal charge for using it. He was outraged by our demand and even broke our signboard at the parking lot,” Vijayaraghavan wrote in his complaint.

He also alleged that Dr Shanmugam began harassing her by throwing “pieces of chicken” outside her apartment despite knowing she is a vegetarian.

CCTV footage corroborates with the allegations of urinating outside the residence of the widow. However, the ABVP called the incident as a “malicious and derogatory propaganda” by the Congress’ student wing of NSUI.

"The video shared by NSUI with an allegation of harassment is tampered with and is being used with malafide intentions. The two families have discussed this within their housing society and have already concluded that the harassment allegations were caused due to misunderstandings and are untrue,” ABVP National General secretary Nidhi Tripathi said.

Vijayaraghavan also alleged in his two-page written complaint that the ABVP national president had urinated outside the woman’s apartment gate and had been throwing garbage and used masks at her gate.

In his complaint, Vijayaraghavan also said the family was “concerned about her safety” while asking police to take action against Dr Shanmugam, who he says, “has a bad track record in maintaining rapport with neighbours.”

Also Read: ABVP national president accused of harassing woman, urinating at her doorstep

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.

Bengaluru, Mar 25: The Director-General of Police (DGP), Praveen Sood said on Wednesday that grocery stores and supermarkets can stay open for 24 hours across the state for people’s convenience.
Sood’s statement came on Wednesday following panic among people after the government’s announcement of a 21-day long nationwide lockdown starting on March 24.