Telangana High Court
A. Vinod Kumar And 22 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 30 May, 2024
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.13503 of 2024
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent officials in harassing the Petitioners under the guise of investigating Crime No.54 of 2024 by calling them to the police station at odd hours and detaining them for the entire day, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, in violation of rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 to 21 of the Constitution of India, with a consequential prayer to direct the Respondents not to harass the Petitioners and call them for investigating at odd hours and pass such other order...."
2. It is the specific grievance of the petitioners, who are 23 in number, that the 3rd respondent is harassing them on the pretext of investigation in Crime No.54 of 2024, dt.13.05.2024, registered on the file of Shanthi Nagar Police Station.
3. It is averred in the writ affidavit that on 13.05.2024, during the conduct of Lok Sabha Elections, when petitioner 2 Nos.1 to 3 had gone to the polling booth to cast their vote identifying themselves as voters, it was noticed by them that a symbol pertaining to a particular party was smudged with blue ink at booth No.167 of Waddepalli Municipality, Paipad Ward No.1, disabling the voters of the booth from properly identifying a particular party candidate, thereby hindering the process of a fair election.
4. It is further averred in the writ affidavit that the incident was brought to the notice of the polling agent of the particular party and sought for temporary stalling of the voting process till the defect is rectified; that while the incident was being looked into by the polling officer, the Sub-Inspector of Police, had intentionally pushed the by- standers belonging to the particular party, and created a commotion.
5. It is further averred that Sub-Inspector of Police obtained a complaint from the 4th respondent and since then he has been harassing the petitioners on one pretext or the other.
3
6. It is also urged in the writ affidavit that petitioners are voters of the same election booth and while they were availing their right to vote, they cannot be charged under Section 448 of IPC as there is no allegation of a riot on the petitioners to attract the provisions of Section 147 of IPC.
7. It is contended that since petitioners have brought to the notice of the polling officer about the smudging of a particular party symbol to prevent corrupt practices in elections, the petitioners cannot be charged under Section 133 and 136 of Representation of the People Act, 1951, since it is the right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to have a proper and fair elections and right to vote.
8. Lastly, it is submitted that the 3rd respondent had been calling the petitioners to the police station at odd hours and that petitioners No.4 to 23 are only by-standers and they are not involved even in the complaint of smudging of a party symbol in the Electronic Voting Machine(EVM).
4
9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3 that averments made in the writ affidavit are all false and that petitioners, belong to a particular party, tried to interfere with fair conduct of polling process and the video footage shows the petitioners committing riot at polling station No.167 attracting the ingredients of Sections 188, 353, 448, 147 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 131 and 136 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
10. It is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that respondent-police issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to the petitioners and when the same were sought to be served on them by calling them multiple times, they refused to receive. It is further submitted that on refusal to receive the notices, they were sent by registered post with instructions to attend the police station on 19.05.2024; that 21 notices were returned with endorsement 'left from address', whereas the remaining notices were returned with endorsement 'refused'. It is also submitted that Head Constable bearing batch No.1366 & Police Constable 5 bearing batch No.2275 affixed 41(a)(1) notices on the doors of the houses of petitioners.
11. It is lastly submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that police acted as per law and there is no infirmity in the procedure followed by them, and that averments made in the writ affidavit are not correct.
12. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents, considered rival contentions and perused the record.
13. It is not in dispute that on the date of polling i.e., on 13.05.2024, by way of a complaint it was brought to the notice of the concerned polling authority with regard to smudging of a party symbol and the same was rectified by the Officer-In-Charge of the polling station and the voting process continued, in the meanwhile the allegation with regard to the riotous situation was brought to the notice of the respondent-police, wherein necessary action was stated 6 to have been initiated and hence notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., were issued to petitioners. These facts are not in dispute and are borne by record.
14. Having regard to the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the police are duty bound to follow the law and accordingly, they have to conduct a fair investigation into the allegations that have been brought to the notice of the Officer-In-Charge of the Polling Station.
15. No doubt, right to vote in the process of elections is one of the fundamental rights and both the respondents and the citizens have to be fair enough to have the election process conducted in free and fair manner. If any violation is noticed either by the citizens of the country or by the respondents-authorities, it is their duty to correct such mistakes, which are in their notice, such as smudging of symbols on the Electronic Voting Machine etc.
16. Further, it is not in dispute that there was smudging of a particular party symbol, brought to the notice of the polling officials, which was rectified. 7
17. Be that as it may, respondents shall follow due process of law by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to the petitioners and conduct a hassle free investigation by not harassing them. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall cooperate with the authorities of the concerned Police Station by cooperating in the investigation after the receipt of 41-A notices.
18. Subject to the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 30th May, 2024.
gra