The High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 125 of the Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC due to insufficient evidence for promoting enmity or intentionally provoking a breach of peace.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside and quashing of FIR No.110 of 2021, dated 30.10.2021, under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, which may be relevant for proper adjudication of the case at hand, are that respondent No.4 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who is an office bearer of Bharatiya Janta Party, lodged a complaint through email with the Chief Electoral Officer, Shimla on 03.10.2021, alleging therein that petitioner, during an election speech, used abusive language against the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, thereby violating the Model Code of Conduct and provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Indian Penal Code. Complaint received by Chief Electoral Officer was further forwarded to the Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which taking cognizance of the contents of complaint proceeded to lodge FIR sought to be quashed.

3. Though challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing and setting aside of FIR as well as consequent proceedings.

4. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that no case much less case under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act and Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Mr. Chauhan, states that bare perusal of FIR sought to be quashed as well as Final Report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C nowhere discloses specific description, if any, of abusive language, if any, hurled by the petitioner, rather complainant simply stated that during election rally, petitioner, who is a senior Congress leader, made absurd and uncalled for remarks against Hon’ble Prime Minster of India, which is otherwise not sufficient to constitute offence, if any, under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act and Section 504 of Indian Penal Code.

5. To the contrary, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant, while praying for dismissal of the petition filed at the behest of the petitioner, vehemently argued that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-State by lodging FIR. They stated that petitioner not only hurled abuses but also made absurd and objectionable remarks against the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. They stated that while using absurd language against Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India, as such, rightly came to be booked under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act. They further stated that petitioner, with a view to disrupt elections and vitiate political atmosphere, intentionally insulted the Hon’ble Prime Minster of India and provoked workers of Bharatiya Janta Party, being fully aware that such actions were likely to cause public disorder, as such, h