Sandeep Kumar, J. – Heard senior learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2023

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by learned ACJM-I, Katihar, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2023, the same is allowed.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to challenge the cognizance order dated 12.10.2020.

Re.: Cr. Misc. No. 13494 of 2023

5. The present application has been being filed for quashing the FIR bearing PS Barsoi Case No. 93 of 2019 dated 16.04.2019, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 123 (3) and 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Case is presently pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Katihar.

6. Subsequently, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted and the learned A.C.J.M., Katihar has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 188 of the IPC read with Sections 123(3) and 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned FIR bearing P.S. Barsoi Case No. 93 of 2019 dated 16.04.2019, was instituted for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 123 and 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, on the basis of a written report submitted by Rajeev Ranjan (O.P.No.2), claiming himself to be the Assistant Engineer of Rural Works Department, Barsoi, Katihar, Bihar.

8. The brief facts of the case are that the Informant alleged in his written report that on 15.04.2019 Navjot Singh Sidhu (the Petitioner) (Hon'ble Minister, Govt. of Punjab) had addressed a public gathering organized by the Indian National Congress at the campus ground of Utkramit High School, Ghatta, Barsoi. The said public gathering and the address delivered by the petitioner was recorded by VST, Barsoi and upon perusal of the said recording made by VST, the AEO Katihar, Barsoi informed that the model code of conduct had been violated by the petitioner while delivering his speech.

9. Further, the Informant alleged that after watching the C.D. (made available by VST, Barsoi), it is clear that the petitioner has violated the restraining orders while making appeal for votes on religious grounds. After that the Informant submitted his written report to the concerned police station, the aforementioned FIR was instituted against the petitioner and the charge-sheet bearing No. 94/20 dated 12.07.2020 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 123 (3) and 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was accordingly filed against the petitioner.

10. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been is falsely implicated in the instant case only due to political rivalry. The petitioner having a political figure since almost past two decades and has been contesting elections in the most peaceful and decent manner. However, the issue of alleged hate speech has never been a case as far as the present petitioner is concerned.

11. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the allegation as levelled against the petitioner is only to harass the petitioner and to settle political scores and the impugned FIR is fit to be quashed, as even if otherwise, the case of the complainant at hand is assumed to be true without admitting, even then due to the alleged contentious speech, not even a single incident escalated which resulted in social turmoil, violence, hate crime or degradation of social fabric of peace & harmony.

12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 188 of the I