Point of Law: Non-occurrence of any cognizable offence is also one of the paramount condition which averted the courts below from issuing a direction for investigation in exercise of powers under Sections 156 (3) CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal, Senior Advocate (Additional Advocate General) assisted by Sri AK Sand, Advocate appearing for the State and perused the record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court proceeds to decide the present matter finally at admission stage itself without calling for the respective affidavits of the parties with the consent of the counsel concerned.

3. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court rejecting an application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC.

4. The facts culled out from the pleadings of the petitioner are that the present petitioner has moved an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC with an allegation that Bhartiya Janta Party headed by the respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 in the original application) had wooed the voters with several promises but failed to fulfil the promises as made in the Election Manifesto-2014, which was promulgated by Bhartiya Janta Party in the parliamentary election conducted in the year 2014. Therefore, he has committed crime of fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonesty, defamation, deceiving and falls allurement. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh) vide its order dated 1.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court, the applicant (petitioner herein) has preferred a revision dated 12.10.2020 being criminal revision No. 141 of 2020. Aforesaid revision was dismissed affirming the order passed by the trial court.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have illegally rejected an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC without applying their mind and without properly appreciating the allegations made against the respondent No. 2 and the document on record. Non fulfilment of promises as made in the Election Manifesto-2014 makes out a clear cut criminal case against the respondent No.2, who is liable to be summoned and tried under different sections of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar matter Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notices to the other side in Writ Petition (Civil) No. (s). 688/2019, which is still pending for consideration. Fact regarding pendency of the aforesaid matter was brought to the knowledge of the revisional court through paragraph No. 5 of the memo of the revision but the same has not been considered by the revisional court while deciding the revision on merits.

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel has contended that on the face of an application, no cognizable offence is made out against the respondent No. 2 to be tried by the court below. It is further contended that non-fulfilling promise, if any, as averred in the Election Manifesto-2014 does not make out any cognizable offence against the persons who have promulgated the election manifesto. It has further been contended that non-fulfilling the conditions as averred in the election manifesto does not come within the ambit of any law, and therefore, it cannot be enforced under any legislation. Trial court as well as revisional court has rightly rejected an application after going through the contents of the application and evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned senior advocate has cited the case of Vivek Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India Cabinet Secretary and others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 5139, Mithlesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Election Commission of India and others reported in 2014 SCC Online Del 4771, V.P. Ammavasai Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissioner of India and others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 5623 and Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse Vs. Haribanshramakbal Singh reported in