IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of legal provisions such as Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. in determining jurisdiction and procedural compliance in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant, namely, Mohd. Rashid Khan with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 20.11.2017 alongwith impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Faizabad in Case No.551 of 2019 (State Vs. Mohd. Rashid Khan), arising out of Case Crime No.0395 of 2017, under Sections 171 H and 188 of I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Faizabad as well as to quash the entire criminal proceedings in pursuance thereof.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was contesting on the post of Councilor in Urban Local Bodies Election, 2017. During that period on 17.11.2017, an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2, namely, Sub Inspector Sri Avnish Kumar Chauhan, the then Chowki In-charge Sahadatganj, Police Station Cantt., District Ayodhya/Faizabad against the applicant alleging therein that one poster was put on a pole situated in front of house of Ashok Jaiswal. Further allegation in the F.I.R. was that the applicant was a candidate from Ward No.21 i.e. Sardar Bhagat Singh Ward and the aforesaid act of the applicant is an offence under Section 171 H / 188 of I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on 19.11.2017, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the applicant, wherein he denied the allegations. On 20.11.2017, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Opposite Party No.2 and one witness, namely, Constable Narendra Singh, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they supported the version of F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on 20.11.2017, the Investigating Officer prepared the impugned charge sheet dated 20.11.2017 and on 26.02.2019, the learned trial court without applying its judicial mind, took cognizance of the offence on police report.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 171 H and 188 I.P.C., which is without jurisdiction as Section 171 H of I.P.C. is described as non cognizable offence in the penal code and Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. specifically provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under Sections 172 to 188 except upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Thus, taking cognizance under Section 188 I.P.C. is also without jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 had no right to lodge the F.I.R. for offences as mentioned above rather he had to file the complaint only before the concerned court. He further submitted that not only the F.I.R. was registered but also the investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted without any jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that even if the entire story of the prosecution is accepted as true (only for the sake of argument though not admitted), Section 171 H of I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant in the instant case as only a person other than the candidate of an election can be made accused under Section 171 H of I.P.C.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per Section 190 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the concerned Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence on three conditions i.e. (i) Upon receiving a complaint of facts, (ii) Upon a police report, and (iii) Suo-moto.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Faizabad, by which the applicant was summoned, is also non speaking as the Magistrate has not considered any material available before him while summoning the applicant to face the trial. As such, the impugned order dated 26.02.2