Allahabad High Court
Virendra Singh Mast And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 December, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10682 of 2019 Applicant :- Virendra Singh Mast And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,Mr. V.C. Mishra, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to stay further proceedings of Case No.42 of 2015 (State Vs. Virendra Singh & another) pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, MP/MLA, Allahabad and stay warrant dated 08.03.2019 and for quashing charge sheet no.45 of 2014 dated 25.05.2014 in Case No.147 of 2014, under Sections 186, 188, 171-H of I.P.C., Police Station Suryawa, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Allahabad.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR was got registered by opposite party no.2 on 28.08.2014 against the applicants as Case Crime No.147 of 2014, under Sections 186, 188, 171-H of I.P.C., Police Station Suryawa, District Bhadohi with the allegation that the applicants have exceeded the time limits provided to them for the public address on the relevant date. The time provided for public address was during 12.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., but inspite of that, they have culminated the meeting till 5.50 p.m. There is difference of 50 minutes only and the police after holding superficial investigation in the matter has submitted the charge sheet in a mechanical manner on 25.05.2014 and the cognizance has been taken on 08.01.2015. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the Parliamentary Election of 2014 a public meeting was scheduled and the permission has been obtained for a meeting from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi. The meeting was to be addressed by applicant no.2 - Ex-National President of Bhartiya Janta Party. As per the time allowed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi, the meeting headed by applicant no.2 was completed and there was no violation of the permission granted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi.
It has further been submitted that the entire exercise has been undertaken by the complainant at the instance of the leader of opposition party to defame the applicants in public as no breach of election guidelines has been undertaken nor there is any such allegation in the FIR. The FIR has been lodged under Sections 186, 188, 171-H of IPC, the same are reproduced hereinunder :-
"Section 186 - Obstructing Public Servant in discharge of public functions - Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine within may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 188- Disobedience to order fuly promulgated by public servant - Whoever, knowing that , by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain at, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys, such direction.
Section 171-H. Illegal payments in connection with an election.- Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement. Circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:
Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate."
It has been submitted that no offence under the relevant sections is made out as the meeting was conducted as per permission granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi who was present on the spot and has raised 'No Objection' nor is there any communication made by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi to the Election Officer. The meeting was conducted in the proper manner and in terms of permission granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhadohi.
It has further been contended that no sufficient evidence on record has been collected by the Investigating Officer; like the statement of the Sub Divisional Officer nor the traffic report has been called for determining whether the meeting was extended for more than the time granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Learned A.G.A. for the State, on the contrary, stated that the applicant has extended meeting for 50 minutes which was clear violation of the permission granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi. Although, he could not show anything on record to prove this fact.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, charge sheet no.45 of 2014 dated 25.05.2014 in Case No.147 of 2014, under Sections 186, 188, 171-H of I.P.C., Police Station Suryawa, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Allahabad is quashed.
The application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Anand Sri./-