ORDER

1. This petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of complaint dated 1.4.2014, in pursuance to which, order dated 22.11.2023 has been passed framing charges against the petitioners and also the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Court.

2. As per the facts of the case, the respondent had filed a complaint on 1.4.2014 alleging that an offence under section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘I.P.C.’], has been committed by the present petitioners. The said private complaint is available on record as AnnexureP/1 and as per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners violated the prohibitory order dated 7.3.2014 issued by the complainant who was the-then Sub-Divisional Magistrate imposing restrictions by using power of section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’]. The said prohibitory order dated 7.3.2014 is also available on record as Annexure-P/2. The order dated 7.3.2014 reveals that a prohibitory direction was issued towards general public conveying that several activities including political campaign shall remain prohibited till such order remains in force. The dispute arose on 27.3.2014 when a news article was published in a local daily newspaper titled as ‘Jabalpur Express’ alleging that the petitioners herein have violated the prohibitory order dated 7.3.2014 and organized a meeting on 23.3.2014 in a temple situated at Village- Bohani, Gadarwara, and tried to influence the voters. The said article of newspaper is available on record as Annexure-P/3.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said news article would reveal that the same does not merely covers the lleged incident but also goes on to create an impression that the present petitioners were indulged in a political campaigning, however, the said article does not bear even a single whisper regarding any injury, mishap or nuisance being caused due to the alleged activities of the present petitioners. He submits that the Tahsildar was asked to make an enquiry and submit the report, who in turn, had made an enquiry and submitted its report dated 27.3.2014 contending that the petitioners visited Shri Dev Janki Mandir on 23.3.2014 and a crowd of around 20-25 persons was present in the said temple although no political speech was delivered by the present petitioners. The report also does not reveal any injury, mishap or nuisance caused to any of the persons present on the spot and as such, according to learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the offence of section 188 of I.P.C. is not made-out. He has also submitted that this Court considering the similar aspect of the matter, has decided one petition i.e. M.Cr.C. No.2373 of 2024 vide order dated 18.01.2024 and dismissed the complaint made by the authority against the petitioners therein. He has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in (2012) 5 SCC 1 parties being Ramlila Maidan Incident, IN RE (Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No.122 of 2011, decided on February 23, 2012) decided by the Court in a reference case taking suo moto cognizance.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the facts and circumstances existing in the present case are sufficient to initiate action against the present petitioners under the respective provision and the Court has not committed any wrong. According to him, the complaint dated 1.4.2014 so also the order passed by the Court below on 07.04.2014, cannot be quashed on the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioners.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that when in similar circumstances, this Court while deciding M.Cr.C. No.2373 of 2024 parties being Govind Singh Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, has considered the respective provision and observed as un