JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral) :- Surinder Singh Chauhan, an advocate, has approached this Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the quashing of the proceedings initiated against him by the learned judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli at Solan in Criminal Case No.44/2 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It appears, election to the Municipal Council, Parwanoo, were held on 20th December, 2000. Petitioner was one of the candidates from Ward No.9. Mr. Ram Sarup Dutt, Lecturer, Senior Secondary School Barotiwala, District Solan, was the Presiding Officer in the polling booth for Ward No.9 which was located in the office of NJPC.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is: At about 10.00 AM petitioner entered the polling booth and asked for serial number of a ballot paper. Shri Ram Sarup, Presiding Officer refused to give him the number of ballot paper on which the petitioner threatened the Presiding Officer saying that he was a lawyer of the High Court and that he will approach the Bar Association and get the election cancelled It is the further case of the prosecution that at that time he was carrying a mobile phone and a camera with him. The Presiding Officer of the polling booth objected to his bringing the camera and mobile phone inside the polling booth. The petitioner told the Presiding Officer that he being candidate is entitled to bring the camera and take the photographs. He also told the Presiding Officer that he is a lawyer and knows his law and threatened him that he would make them stand in the High Court. He also threatened the Presiding Officer and the Police officer that "he would see them". Thus, according to the complaint he disobeyed the orders of the Presiding Officer and the Police Officer present there. It is the further case of the complainant that according to the election pamphlet taking of photographs inside the polling booth, without the permission was prohibited. The petitioner did not listen to the Presiding Officer. Thereafter, Assistant Collector, Parwanoo, came and took away the petitioner from the polling booth. The Presiding Officer of the booth recorded in his diary that the petitioner Mr. Surinder Chauhan took serial number of counter-foil and brought the mobile phone inside the polling booth and also took photographs inside the booth.

4. On 15th December, 2001 Sub Inspector Brij Mohan filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli at Solan for an offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner was asked about he having brought the mobile phone and having taken the photographs by the Presiding Officer and ASI Rattan Kumar, on which he threatened both of them that he is a lawyer and he would see them and would manage a strike in the High Court and Solan Courts and also told them he will not hand over the camera.

5. On the receipt of this complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner to appear in the Court as an accused on 25th June, 2001. On 25th June, 2001 was a holiday and therefore, the accused was directed to be summoned for 21st September, 2001 on 26th June, 2001.

6. I have heard Mr. I.D. Bali, learned senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Verinder K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent.

7. The contention of Mr. Bali is two folds : (a) even if the entire case of the prosecution is admitted to be correct, no case against the petitioner is made out for proceedings against him under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code; (b) the police had taken a cognizance of the offence which was not permissible under the law and accused could not have been prosecuted, save and except, on the complaint in writing by the Presiding Officer of the booth, Shri Ram Sarup.

8. So far his first contention is conc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document