##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-NAG:14852-DB

J-apl1254.25 final.odt 1/8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1254 OF 2025

Sanjay Narayan Meshram,

Aged about : 66 years,

Occupation : Member of Legislative Assembly Umred,

presently residing at Bunglow No.15,

Pearl Heritage City,

Near Kanha Celebration Lawn,

Umred Road, Umred District, Nagpur. : APPLICANT

...VERSUS...

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through the Police Station Officer,

Kuhi Police Station, Nagpur Rural.

2. Shrikant Suresh Dhoke,

Amended as per

Age : 36 years,

Court’s order dated

4.11.2025. Occupation : The Zonal Officer,

having address at

Sub-Divisional Water Conservation

Depapartment, Kuhi, Nagpur : RESPONDENTS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mr. Rahul D. Dhande, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. A.G. Mate, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 19 ^th DECEMBER, 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON : 23 ^rd DECEMBER, 2025.

JUDGMENT : (Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

J-apl1254.25 final.odt 2/8

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the

Charge-sheet/Final Report bearing No.27/2025, dated 2.3.2025,

pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Kuhi bearing Summary Criminal Case No.158/2025 and

the First Information Report No.568/2024 dated 20.11.2024 for the

offences punishable under Sections 174 and 223 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 132(1) of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951.

3. As per the averments in the application, the applicant

is the sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from Umred

Constituency. It is further stated that the Election Commission of

India declared elections for the Legislative Assembly of the State of

Maharashtra to be held on 20^th November, 2024 and the applicant

was one of the contesting candidates. It is further stated in the

application when the voting for the elections was ongoing, there

were several complaints received from the voters of polling booth

No.115 that the Officers of the said booth were conducting the

election process at a very slow pace, as a result of which the voters

had to stand in queue for long period. Therefore, there was an

apprehension that such a slow pace of voting would dissuade voters

from standing and ultimately exercising their franchise. The

J-apl1254.25 final.odt 3/8

applicant being a candidate was concerned about the said grievance

and therefore, informed the Election Officer at the said booth to

speed up the process.

4. However, it is alleged in the application that on

20.11.2024, the respondent No.2 i.e. the Zonal Officer for Poll

Booth No.107 to 115 filed a Police complaint alleging that on

20.11.2024 at around 2.45 p.m. the applicant along with 5 to 6

people entered the polling booth and raised a complaint/grievance

regarding the voting process being very slow. It is further alleged in

the First Informant Report that the Booth Officer tried to explain

the situation but the applicant was not in a mood to leave the said

booth and tried to obstruct the voting process. It is further alleged

that the videography of the said incident was done on the mobile

phone which is contrary to the Model Code of Conduct. Based on

these allegations, offences as mentioned under the above sections

were clamped upon the applicant and the First Informant Report in

question was lodged. It is this First Information Report which is

challenged in the present application.

5. We have heard Mr. Rahul D. Dhande, learned counsel

for the applicant and Mr. A.G. Mate, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that lodging

J-apl1254.25 final.odt 4/8

of First Information Report is nothing but grave abuse of process of

Court a