Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Kari – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL MP No. 8788 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan
For the Respondents: R. Rajasekaran
Possession of pamphlets advocating an election boycott without active distribution or interference with voters does not constitute the offence of undue influence under Section 171(C) of the Indian Penal Code, as it falls under the protection of exercising a legal right.
Headnote:The proceeding arises under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically involving Sections 171
(C) and 171(F). The petitioners, representing an agriculturists' association, were apprehended with pamphlets advocating for an election boycott. The prosecution initiated criminal proceedings alleging undue influence despite the absence of evidence showing distribution or direct obstruction of the electoral process during polling hours. The core issue is whether the possession of pamphlets calling for an election boycott constitutes 'undue influence' under Section 171
(C) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the actions fell within the safe harbor of Section 171
(C)(3), which protects the declaration of public policy or grievances made in the exercise of a legal right without specific intent to interfere with electoral rights. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving seizure of pamphlets by a flying squad. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention regarding the definition of undue influence and electoral interference. (Para 4) |
| 3. application of section 171(c)(3) to protect the exercise of legal rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report/Charge Sheet No.FR-36 of 2024 dated 21-05-2024 and C.C. No.107 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District (arising out of Crime No.36 of 2024 of Denadu Combai Police Section) for the alleged offences under Sections 171(C) and 171(F) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and quash the same.
For Petitioners: Mr. V. Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan For Respondents: Mr. R. Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for R1
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report/Charge Sheet No.FR-36 of 2024, dated 21.05.2024 and C.C. No. 107 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District (arising out of Crime No.36 of 2024 of Denadu Combai Police Section) for the alleged offences under Sections 171(C)
and 171(F) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to quash the same.
2. The petitioners who are accused in C.C.No. 107 of 2024 and are facing trial for the offences under Sections 171(C) and 171(F) of the IPC, have filed this quash petition.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that they are senior citizens, agriculturist and residents of the Nilgiris Hills engaged in small-scale farming. The 2nd petitioner, aged about 81 years, was, at the relevant time, the President of the Malai Maavatta Siru Vivasayigal Nala Sangam, a registered association of small farmers in the Nilgiris District. The 1st petitioner was the driver of the association, while the 3rd petitioner and A4 are members of the association.
3.1. On 04.04.2024, the petitioners were travelling together in a vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 43 K 3204, in which printed notices of the association were found. The said notices had been printed in the ordinary course of the functioning of the association. The petitioners contend that they were never informed that the carrying or distribution of such notices was prohibited under any law and that they were not found distributing the notices to any voter.
3.2. It is their further contention that the Flying Squad at Idduhatti intercepted the vehicle, seized the pamphlets and lodged a complaint, pursuant to which FIR in Crime No. 36 of 2024 was registered on 12.04.2024. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court listing five witnesses and the seized pamphlets.
3.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to Section 171(C)
(3) of the IPC, submitted that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, made in the exercise of a legal right and without any intent to interfere with an electoral right, would not amount to undue influence within the meaning of the said provision.
3.4. The learned counsel further submitted that the parliamentary election was held on 04.04.2024 and that the petitioners were never found near any polling booth. According to the prosecution, the petitioners’ vehicle was intercepted at about 6.46 p.m., after the polling hours had ended. Therefore, there was no attempt on the part of the petitioners to obstruct or interfere with the electoral process.
3.5. The learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the listed witnesses also confirm that the interception of the vehicle and seizure of the pamphlets took place at about 6.46 p.m., much after the polling hours. On a bare reading of the pamphlet, it could be seen that the farmers’ association had convened a meeting on 07.03.2024 and passed a resolution highlighting the grievances
