The specific provisions under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 for initiating prosecution of an accused person for an offence committed under Sections 184, 185, and 187 IPC displaced the general rules, rendering the complaint filed under Section 136 of the Act of 1951 not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this appeal is to set aside the judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by the trial Court, vide which the complaint filed by the appellant under Sections 166, 171, 477 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant on 29.07.2010 with the allegations that complainant was resident of Village Siwan, Tehsil and District Kaithal and was a registered voter in the Electoral Roll of Gram Panchayat, Siwan at Sr. No.391 of Ward No.1 Siwan and his name was entered at Sr. No.354 in the Voters' List. As per the provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Act of 1994'), the elections of Gram Panchayat were announced by the District Electoral Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal vide notice dated 21.05.2010 and accused No.1 was appointed as Returning Officer for Block Siwan. Accused No.2-respondent herein, was appointed as Presiding Officer/A.P.O. by Returning Officer to receive nomination papers and to complete the process of the Election of Gram Panchayat, Siwan, including the election of Panch of Ward No.1 Village Siwan. The complainant wanted to contest the election for the post of Panch of Ward No.1 Gram Panchayat, Siwan. On 24.05.2010, the complainant had submitted his duly filled-in nomination papers within the prescribed time. Accused No.1 had deputed the respondent to receive the nomination papers and the complainant submitted nomination papers to the respondent. In this regard, complainant also deposited a security amount of Rs.40/- with the respondent vide receipt No.0119357 dated 24.05.2010, duly signed by the respondent. The scrutiny of nomination papers was to be done on 25.05.2010 from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm. The election symbols were to be allotted on 27.05.2010 and list of eligible candidates was to be published on 27.05.2010. On 27.05.2010, when the complainant went to the office of Returning Officer at about 3.00 pm for obtaining symbol for the election for the post of Panch of Ward No.1 Siwan, the respondent told him that his nomination papers were not available with him. When the complainant insisted the respondent to search out his nomination papers, then the complainant was asked to produce any proof regarding filing of nomination papers. Then the complainant had shown the receipt of security deposit to the respondent. The respondent took the same and after going through it, torn the same and threw the pieces with anger. The respondent also abused the complainant, assaulted him and told him bluntly that his nomination papers had been lost. The complainant then collected the pieces of receipt torn by the respondent and requested both the accused to search out his nomination form and allot him a symbol. Both the accused flatly refused to allot him election symbol and to search out his nomination form. Thereafter, complainant came to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and apprised the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal with the circumstances by moving an application on 27.05.2010 in the evening. The said application was sent to BDPO, Guhla vide dispatch No.155/CEA dated 28.05.2010. It is alleged that both the accused in collusion with each other and other candidates, who were contesting the election for the post of Panch, Ward No.1, Gram Panchayat, Siwan, have fraudulently destroyed the nomination form of the complainant and removed the name of the complainant from the list of contesting candidates.

3. The present complaint was filed that action be taken against the accused persons under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'Act of 1951').

4. After the complainant led preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned only accused No.2-respondent to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 136(i)(a)(b) and sub Section 2 of the Act of 1951 vide order dated 29.02.2012. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as CW1, Miyan Si