Bombay High Court
Nandkishor Hiraman Pilare vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Rajura ... on 24 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12819-DB
Cri.APL.292.20.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 292/2020
1. Nandkishor Hiraman Pilare,
Aged about 45 years, Occ- Assistant Teacher,
R/o Ramnagar Coary Ward No. 10 Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Rajura,
Distt. Chandrapur
2. Ashwini Avinashrao Kondawar, (Deleted)
Aged about 57 years, Occ- Service,
R/o Tahsil Office, Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anil A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicant
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th NOVEMBER, 2025.
Cri.APL.292.20.odt 2/7
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application challenging the First Information Report dated 23.07.2018 registered against the applicant at Police Station, Rajura District Chandrapur vide Crime No. 560/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 32 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 and Section 134 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. The application also prays for quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings/charge sheet dated 11.09.2019 bearing Summary Criminal Case No. 717/2019 pending on the files of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura District Chandrapur arising out of the said First Information Report.
3. As per the contents of the First Information Report, the respondent no. 2 lodged a report at the respondent no. 1 police station and stated that the applicant was appointed as a Booth Level Officer at the election booth bearing no. 224 at Bhedoda. Cri.APL.292.20.odt 3/7 However, the applicant made an application to the concerned authority and refused to perform the duty of the booth level officer by assigning the reason that because of it the studies of the students would suffer. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 lodged the report pursuant to which the First Information Report in question was registered against the present applicant. It is this First Information Report and a consequent summary criminal case which is impugned in the present application.
4. We have heard Mr. Anil Dhawas, learned Advocate for the applicant as also Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as far as the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "1950 Act") is concerned, it speaks about breach of official duty in connection with the preparation etc. of electoral roles and provides for punishment with imprisonment for three months but which may extent to two years with fine. It is however the submission of the Cri.APL.292.20.odt 4/7 learned counsel for the applicant that the Court is restrained from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under sub-Section 1 unless there is a complaint made by order of or under the authority from the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of the state concerned. He therefore submits that in the present case no such authority is placed on record and F.I.R. is lodged by the respondent no. 2 without any authority in that regard. He therefore submits that no offence under the 1950 Act can be made out. He further submits that as far as offence under Section 134 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 is concerned (hereinafter referred to as "1951 Act"), sub-Section 3 of Section 34 applies to only the persons named therein and therefore, admittedly, the applicant does not fall in the category of the persons named therein. He therefore submits that, even offence under Section 134 of the 1951 Act is not made out.
6. Per Contra, the learned A.P.P. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, vehemently opposes contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and states that the applicant concerned has disobeyed the orders of the election duty and has committed the offences Cri.APL.292.20.odt 5/7 punishable under said Act.
7. In the light of these submissions we have carefully perused the statutes in question. Section 32 of the 1950 Act as stated above speaks about breach of official duty in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of an electoral role or inclusion or exclusion of any entry and makes a penal provision if the person without reasonable cause is guilty of any act or omission in breach of such official duty. Sub-Section 3 of section 32 however puts a bar on the Court to take cognizance of any offence punishable under sub-Section 1 unless there is a complaint made by the order of or under the authority from the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of the state concerned.
8. We have perused the written complaint made by the respondent no. 2. The said complaint makes a reference to the communications of the Chief Electoral Officer bearing Letter No. ELR2018 dated 10.05.2018. However, no such letter is placed on record by the prosecution in spite of seeking repeated adjournments in that regard. We therefore of the view that there is no material on Cri.APL.292.20.odt 6/7 record to show authority from the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of the state concerned. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that offence under Section 32 of the 1950 Act is not made out, their being express bar for taking cognizance of the same.
9. However, as far as offence under Section 134 of the Act is concerned, even though it is submitted that the said Section 134, by virtue of sub-Section 3 thereof applies only to District Election Officers, Returning Officers, Assistant Returning Officers, Presiding Officers, Pooling Officers, in our view "any other person appointed to perform any duty in connection" would take into its sweep the person appointed as Block Level Officer as in the case of applicant. Our view is fortified from the later part of sub-Section 3 which expressly state that the expression "official duty" would be construed accordingly. Even otherwise, a purposive and interpretation of Section 134 needs to be done looking at the purpose and intent of the Act. The heading of Section 134 "breach of official duty in connection with election" would lead us to infer that the official duty would also include the duty of person like the Cri.APL.292.20.odt 7/7 Block Level Officer appointed as a part of conducting elections. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that even though offence under Section 32 of the 1950 Act is not made out, offence under Section 134 of the 1951 Act is certainly made out. Hence, we pass the following Order.
ORDER
i) Application is partly allowed.
ii) First Information Report bearing No. 560/2018 is quashed to
the extent of Section 32 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 Act only.
ii) However, the prosecution would continue as far as Section 134 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 is concerned. Iii) Application is disposed of, accordingly.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Shubham