Absence of direct allegation or evidence implicating the accused and lack of proper investigation justify quashing criminal proceedings.

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned Charge Sheet laid against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2024, G.Puthuraja, Election Officer, Thiruvadanai Assembly Constituency (de facto complainant) allegedly received information through the (C.Viji) App stating that at the entrance of Thiruvadanai Police Station, a wall poster was pasted requesting the public to cast their votes in favour of the petitioner, who belongs to the Indian Union Muslim League Party. Pursuant thereto, the election monitoring team visited the place and removed the wall poster and since pasting such wall posters without permission violates the Model Code of Conduct, G.Puthuraja lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint lodged by the Election Officer, the respondent-police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.68 of 2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 4-(A)(1a) and 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, and Section 171-H of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent-police, after completing investigation, has filed the final report in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2025 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, which is now sought to be quashed.

3. Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner contested the Parliament Election held in the year 2024 for Ramanathapuram Parliamentary Constituency and was elected as a Member of the Parliament. She would further submit that other than the averment that a poster has been pasted seeking public to cast vote in a place where the petitioner was contesting as a candidate of Indian Union Muslim League Party, there is no material to show that it is either the petitioner or any member of the said political party, who has affixed the poster for the petitioner. Further, though the first respondent has submitted that the de facto complainant himself has removed the poster, it has not been recovered by the first respondent- police and without conducting a proper enquiry, the first respondent-police had filed the final report. She would further submit that taking into consideration the entire materials available on record, there are no ingredients for the offence under Section 171-H of the Indian Penal Code. She would also submit that in similar circumstances, this Court, in T.A.Thirumalai Balaji vs. State and another in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7796 of 2012, finding no averment to implicate the petitioner therein and he being the party leader, had quashed the impugned proceedings therein vide order dated 17.11.2017 and the petitioner is also similarly placed. She would also contend that the election campaigning is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and hence, the impugned criminal proceedings are unjustified and unconstitutional and hence, deserve to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the first respondent, would submit that based on the complaint given by the Election Officer, the officials found an unauthorized poster at a public place supporting the petitioner, violating the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 and the act also attracts Section 171-H of the IPC, as it involves unauthorized election-related promotion. He would also contend