Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40. Allegations qua the present petitioners in the complaint is that petitioner no.1 Sahdev had got three votes made in Gurgaon and a 32 of 81 CRM-M-53599-2018 and other connected cases -33- false affidavit had been given qua declaration in Form no.6/8. The said form had also been wrongly verified by his son Paramjit, petitioner no.3 herein. Similarly, wife of petitioner no.1 was also stated to have made three votes and allegations were of impersonating and regarding pasting of photographs.

1. Sehdev son of Chattar Singh, house no.1388, Gurgaon booth no.133 Vote no.288 ID Card no.H/07/61/0141508.

2. Sehdev son of Chattar Singh, house no.917, Hira Nagar, Gurgaon booth no.104 Vote no.771 ID Card no.WHCS566638

3. Sehdev son of Chattar Singh by pasting his photograph, at H.no.1388A, Gurgaon Village, Booth No.133 Vote no.300 ID no.HVV3700424 House no.1388 of Gurgaon Village belongs to accused no.12 Sukhbir Kataria and accused no.7 has given a false affidavit qua the declaration in form no.6/8 that he has not been issued any ID in any Electoral Zone throughout India and Pararmjit son of accused who is an Advocate at Gurgaon is fully aware by the law and inspite of this has verified the form no.6/8 of his father that his father has not been enrolled as a voter anywhere else in India.

Arguments

43. Mr. Deepender Singh, counsel for the petitioners, has accordingly, argued that the case was sent for investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as per the order dated 02.12.2013, the adverse material was against other accused no.1 to 6 and no material has come on record in the investigation by the police qua the petitioners and incomplete report had been given subsequently on 01.05.2014. It is, accordingly, submitted that no offence as such was made out under IPC as only one witness was examined, the complainant himself and only photocopies of the documents had been produced, which were exhibited. Thus, there was no ground for summoning the accused under the provisions of IPC. He has referred to the form filled by petitioner no.1 that he had given a declaration that his vote be deleted from one address in Gurgaon i.e. House No.917/23, Hira Nagar, Gurgaon. He further submitted that thus, there is no forgery as such and only an offence under Section 31 of Representation of People Act, 1950 would be made out. He further argued that limitation is only of one year in such a case and, therefore, provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. would come into play as offences were 37 of 81 CRM-M-53599-2018 and other connected cases -38- of 2009, whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2013, thus, would be barred and liable to be quashed on this ground. He has meticulously referred to photocopy of the record to submit that merely having two votes as such on account of family members would not make out an offence under Section 17 and 31 of Representation of People Act, 1950. False declaration given would not be an offence and, he thus, prayed for quashment of the complaint while placing reliance upon judgment passed in 'Rajesh Joshi Vs. State through the Electoral Registration Officer', 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 847.

87. In CRM-M-947-2019 the petitioners are accused No.7 to 10 and the allegations qua them are of making multiple votes and giving false declaration in Form no.6/8. In the present case on 19.09.2013 the complainant evidence had been recorded and a report had been called for under Section 202 Cr.P.C. though the request for sending the matter for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had been declined. The report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was received by the Magistrate on 72 of 81 CRM-M-53599-2018 and other connected cases -73- 02.12.2013. The statement of the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Giriraj had been recorded that the complete record had not been supplied by the office of the Tehsildar Election Commission and accordingly, notice had been issued to the concerned clerk. Relevant orders dated 19.09.2013 and 02.12.2013 read as under:-