JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 11.5.2022 under Sections 171-F, 506, 186, 189 and 153-A and 120-B IPC in pursuance to the FIR dated 3.3.2022 registered at Crime No.97 of 2002, initially registered under Sections 506 and 171-F IPC at Police Station Kotwali Mau, District Mau. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order of cognizance and summoning dated 23.5.2022 passed by the Special Judge (MP/MLA Court)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Criminal Case No.9720 of 2022.

3. The FIR in question came to be registered after petitioner no.1 made a statement in a public meeting during his election campaign for Member of Legislative Assembly from Mau Sadar Constituency. Petitioner No.1 was contesting the said elicitation on the ticket of Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party in March, 2022. The offending part of the statement made by petitioner no.1 would read lektoknh ikVhZ ds jk"Vzh; v/;{k Jh vf[kys'k ;kno th ls ;g dgdj vk;k gwW fd 6 eghus rd fdlh dk VªkUlQj iksfLVax ugha gksxhA Hkb;k tks ;gka gS oks ;gka gh jgsxk igys fglkc fdrkc gksxk mlds ckn mlds tkus ds lfVZfQdsV ij eqgj yxk;k tk;sxkA^^

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said statement by no stretch of imagination would constitute an offence under Section 153-A IPC. It has been further submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 153-A IPC, there must be an intention of the person making the statement to create disorder or to incite people to violence. Even if it is believed that petitioner no.1 had made the said statement, the statement was directed towards the Government people and not against any member, religion, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. It is further submitted that if the provisions of Section 153-A IPC are considered in proper perspective, the said offence would not get attracted against the petitioners for making the offending statement and, therefore, taking cognizance for an offence under Section 153-A IPC against the petitioners is wholly illegal and to that extent at least the cognizance order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

5. In support of his said contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab; (1995) 3 SCC 214;

2. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P.; (1997) 7 SCC 431;

3. Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another; (2007) 5 SCC 1;

4. Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India and others; (2021) 1 SCC 1; and

5. Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India; (2015) 5 SCC 1.”

6. On the other hand, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the investigating officer has prepared a report, which was sent to the Government for sanction of the prosecution against petitioner No.1 on 3.5.2022. Thereafter, the charge sheet has been submitted against both the petitioners on 11.5.2022. The Government had sanctioned the prosecution against both the petitioners on 24.8.2022 and the said sanction order has been incorporated in the case diary of Parcha No.CD-11 and forwarded the same on 02.09.2022.

7. It has been further submitted that petitioner no.1 is having seven similar cases, including the present one, and petitioner no.2 is having to his credit five criminal case, including the present one. After making the offending statement by petitioner no.1, the Returning Officer of 356 Mau Assembly Constituency sent a notice dated 4.3.2022 to petitioner no.1 calling upon him to furnish his reply as to why action should not be taken against him under the relevant provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. However, petitioner no.1 di