Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Ishrat - Applicant
Vs.
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. - 1252 of 2024
Decided On : 14-06-2024
QUASHING - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 188 IPC, Section 171-E IPC, Section 269 IPC, Section 270 IPC, Section 123 Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 125 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of a written complaint for cognizance under Section 188 IPC. It interpreted Sections 123 and 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, highlighting the lack of essential elements for bribery and promoting enmity. The court concluded that the allegations were baseless and malicious, leading to the quashing of the summoning order and proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought to quash a summoning order and proceedings against him for alleged violations of election laws and COVID-19 guidelines, claiming the allegations were false and lacked essential elements for the offenses charged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the allegations against the applicant to be baseless and lacking the necessary elements to constitute the alleged offenses. It noted procedural flaws in the cognizance taken by the lower court due to the absence of a written complaint from the concerned public servant as required under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted a prima facie case under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Representation of the People Act, and whether the summoning order was valid given the procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a written complaint from the public servant invalidated the cognizance of the offense under Section 188 IPC. It also emphasized that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients for bribery under Section 123 or promoting enmity under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the summoning order and the entire proceedings against the applicant.
JUDGMENT :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ankita Tripahti, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. As per Office report dated 21.02.2024 notice has been served personally on opposite party No.2, but till date neither anyone has put in appearance nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned Summoning Order dated 05.1.2022 issued against the applicant by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao, and also to quash entire proceedings of the Case No. 1834/2022, (State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Chhote Lal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171-E, 269 and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and 125 of The Representation of People Act,1951 (herein after referred to as "Act,1951), registered at Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, pending before Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant/opposite party no. 02, Ram Awtar has lodged an F.I.R. dated 25.04.2021 bearing Case Crime No. 0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171-E, 269 and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and 125 of the Act 1951, at Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, against the applicant and six other named and 15 unknown persons alleging therein that the applicant along with other six named co- accused and 15 other unknown persons were offering illegal gratification to the Voters in Panchayat Elections and one co- accused namely Sumanlata w/o Chhote Lal was distributing Saree to the Voters and they all were collectively and. deliberately flouting the Covid-19 guidelines.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per version of the F.I.R dated 25.04.2021 the applicant was distributing sarees to the voters through co-accused namely Sumanlata w/o Chhote Lal whereas there was no such mention of the bribery given by the applicant or by his agent or by any other person with the consent of the applicant, which in itself is the most essential ingredient to make out an offence under Section 123 of the Act,1951.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Section 125 of the Act,1951 is also levelled against the applicant, which talks about Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election. But, by bare reading of the contents of the F.I.R. the offence of Section 125 of the Act does not make out against the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the statement of the informant and only one witness namely Gokaran Singh, Head Constable was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C., in which they repeated the version of the F.I.R..
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegations made by the informant in the F.I.R. are frivolous, concocted and are based on absolutely false statements with a malicious intention to harass the applicant who is a reputed member of the society and has no past criminal record and are not associated with any such activities by far.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is pertinent to mention here that on 03.02.2021, the Secretary (Home), Government of India, New Delhi has issued a letter no. 40-3/2020- DM-I(A) to the Chief Secretaries of all the States, in which certain directions were issued regarding withdrawal/review of criminal cases resulting from alleged violation of standard COVID-19 protocols on merits.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Hon'ble High Court sitting at Allahabad passed several orders in CRLP No. 7787 of 2021 (Vinay Kumar and Others Vs State of U. P. and 2 Others) for the compliance of the letter dt. 03.02.2021 issued by the Secretary (Home), Government of India.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it can be asserted here that the cognizance taken by the learned Court i
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the court at the stage of issuing process and the emphasis on prima facie evidence to establish liability.
The necessity of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a critical procedural requirement, and failure to comply renders the prosecu....
(1) If a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of offence alleged against accused, Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.(2) Cognizance of offence – Magistrate can ignore conclusion ....
The trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
