The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the petitioners for vote buying, emphasizing that allegations of corruption warrant investigation despite claims of political vendetta.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 40/2024 dated 10.03.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171E and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short ‘PC Act’) registered in Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informants-Sunil Awasthy and Bhuvneshwar Gaur sent a complaint to the Police Station asserting that Budget Session 2024 was organized from 15.02.2024 to 28.02.2024. An election for the seat of Rajya Sabha was held, and the budget was also passed during the session. The votes were cast in favour of the candidate for the seat of Rajya Sabha in a pre-planned conspiracy by misusing huge funds and other resources in a corrupt manner by purchasing votes under illegal influence. The allurements and resources were given against the elected Government by corrupt methods so that the budget could not be passed. There were big rumours/discussions in the different newspapers, electronic media and the general public regarding this incident. Sufficient evidence was available regarding negotiation/purchase and transaction of the money for achieving illegal goals. Transactions worth crores of rupees were made to get the candidate elected. The votes were purchased to topple the Government. Petitioner Ashish Sharma and some other MLAs were involved in the money transactions. Petitioner Rakesh Sharma also remained associated with the MLA. They purchased votes by illegal means and by use of money in a planned manner. Use of helicopters was made, and arrangements were made for staying in 5 to 7-star hotels. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the investigation, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that the petitioner No.1 is innocent and he was falsely implicated to put pressure upon his son, petitioner No.2, who is a member of the legislative assembly. The ruling party could not get its candidate elected for the Rajya Sabha elections. The FIR is politically motivated, and the petitioners have nothing to do with the acts alleged in the FIR. The informants did not have any personal knowledge regarding the allegations made by them, and they made allegations based on the newspaper reports without mentioning the details of such reports. No specific allegation was made regarding the demand/acceptance of a bribe. No disqualification of the MLA can be sought on the ground that the MLA has voted in a particular manner. The voting for the Rajya Sabha seat took place on 27.02.2024. 06 out of 40 MLAs belonging to the ruling party and 3 independent candidates cast their votes in favour of the rival candidate. Both candidates got 34 votes each, and after completing the process of elimination, the rival candidate was elected. The proceedings for disqualification of the MLAs were also started, which are under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 156/2024. The FIR was registered to browbeat the petitioners. The police failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry, and the FIR was registered on the date of receipt of the complaint. The allegations in the FIR are vague. The offences punishable under Sections 171C and 171E are non-cognizable offences. The FIR was wrongly registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the PC Act. No specific role was attributed to the petitioners. There is no proof of demand and acceptance of gratification. The FIR is politically motivated and intended to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. The petitioners never obtained or accepted any undue advantage. The procedure laid down under Section 17A of the PC Act was not followed before the registration of the FIR o