The absence of a written complaint from the concerned public servant invalidates cognizance of offenses under Section 188 IPC, and the allegations in the FIR were found to lack essential elements for the charged offenses.

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 U.P. 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 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 is based