Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Tulsyan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:33793 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3327 of 2022
------
Pradeep Kumar Tulsyan, aged about 69 years, son of Late Gajanand Prasad Tulsyan, resident of Tulsyan House, Sukhdeonagar, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the certified copy of the charge sheet. Keep the same in the record.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 19.08.2019 in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.256 of 2019 by which cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and summoning order has been passed on the same day against the petitioner.
1 Cr. M.P. No.3327 of 2022
( 2025:JHHC:33793 )
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the candidate of the Congress Party went to the table of the Returning Officer and indulged in inappropriate activity. The petitioner was driven out from the vote counting centre and case was instituted against him; upon written report being submitted against him, by the in-charge Executive Magistrate of the Hatia Counting Centre-63, Hatia Assembly Constituency. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant, police registered Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.256 of 2019 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the trial has yet to begin as charge has not yet been framed. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is made out against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. envisages that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence inter alia punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code or of any abetment or attempt to commit such offence except on the complaint in writing from the public servant concerned or of some other public servant 2 Cr. M.P. No.3327 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33793 ) to whom, such public servant is administratively subordinate. It is next submitted that since no complaint has been filed by any public servant in the Court concerned, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code; even though, no complaint was filed by the public servant, whose order has been violated or anyone superior to him. It is next submitted that no offence punishable under Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is also not made out, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, otherwise, than on a complaint in writing filed by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom such public servant is administratively subordinate in the court concerned, more so, when there is no allegation of the petitioner disobeying any promulgation of any order made by any public servant, of which the public servant was legally empowered to make the promulgation and the promulgation directed not 3 Cr. M.P. No.3327 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33793 ) to do certain things or to take certain orders in connection with certain property and the accused knew of such promulgation.
9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 136(1) of the Representation of People Act is that (1)-if at any election, the accused-
(a) fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any nomination paper; or
(b) fraudulently defaces, destroys or removes any list, notice or other document affixed by or under the authority of a returning officer; or
(c) fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any ballot paper or the official mark on any ballot paper or any declaration of identity or official envelope used in connection with voting by postal ballot; or
(d) without due authority supplies any ballot paper to any person or receives any ballot paper from any person or is in possession of any ballot paper; or
(e) fraudulently puts into any ballot box anything other than the ballot paper which he is authorized by law to put in; or
(f) without due authority destroys, takes, opens or otherwise interferes with any ballot box or ballot papers then in use for the purposes of the election; or 4 Cr. M.P. No.3327 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33793 )
(g) fraudulently or without due authority, as the case may be, attempts to do any of the foregoing acts or wilfully aids or abets the doing of any such acts.
10. Section 136(2) of the Representation of People Act envisages punishment for Returning Officer or an Assistant Returning Officer or a Presiding Officer at a polling station or any other officer or clerk employed on official duty in connection with the election, if such person indulges in any of the aforesaid offences mentioned in Section 136(1) of the Representation of People Act.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of committing any of the acts of omissions for which punishment has been provided for in Section 136 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is made out against the petitioner; besides the order taking cognizance in respect of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is also bad in law having been taken otherwise than on a complaint in writing by the public servant or whose order has been violated or any other public servant to which such public servant is subordinate, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will 5 Cr. M.P. No.3327 of 2022 ( 2025:JHHC:33793 ) amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 19.08.2019 in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.256 of 2019 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, be quashed and set aside.
12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 19.08.2019 in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.256 of 2019 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 136 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, is quashed and set aside.
13. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
14. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted, if any, is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of November, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 19/11/2025 6 Cr. M.P. No.3327 of 2022