0THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11565 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused

Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.474 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 171-C read with 171-F of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”)

and Section 135 of the RP Act.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director and petitioner No.2 is the Admin Manager of PMC Pharmaceuticals Company and that they are facing false allegations under Sections 341, 342, 171-C read with 171-F of IPC and Section 135-B of the RP Act. He further submitted that the allegations that they have not permitted the employees to vote on the electoral day is utterly false and that they have the statements of the employees which are filed as a part of

record, showing that they have exercised their vote on the electoral day. He further submitted that the alleged victims are the employees of Supervision in Pharmaceuticals Company which cannot be left unattended on any public holiday also. To prevent any untoward incident, it has to be supervised 24/7. However, they facilitated all the employees to cast their vote and further he contended that the complaint is not lodged by the concerned authority and thus, the complaint itself has to be quashed at the threshold. Since the matter pertains to Section 171-C and 171-F of the IPC, without permission of the Magistrate, the Police, cannot investigate, but the said permission of Magistrate is not obtained by the Investigating Officers in this case, hence, the procedure is vitiated. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that apart from the RP Act, Section 341 and 342 of IPC which are cognizable offences are also added in this case. Hence, there is nothing wrong with the Police to conduct investigation. Therefore, the permission of the Magistrate is not mandatory and hence, the Police can investigate without the said permission. He further submitted that the statements of witnesses disclose that, no holiday was given on the day of elections and that the Sections 171-C and 171-F get attracted in the circumstances. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is pertinent to refer to Section 135-B of the RP Act and Section 171-C and 171-F of the IPC and the same are extracted hereunder.

Section 135-B:- Grant of paid holiday to employees on the day of poll.—(1) Every person employed in any business, trade, industrial undertaking or any other establishment and entitled to vote at an election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State shall, on the day of poll, be granted a holiday.

(2) No deduction or abatement of the wages of any such person shall be made on account of a holiday having been granted in accordance with sub-section (1) and if such person is employed on the basis that he would not ordinarily receive wages for such a day, he shall nonetheless be paid for such day the wages he would have drawn had not a holiday been granted to him on that day.

(3) If an employer contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), then such employer shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

(4) This section shall not apply to any elector whose absence may cause danger or substantial loss in respect of the employment in which he is engaged Section 171-C:- Undue influence at elections.—(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election.

(2) Wi