Prosecution Failed To Provide Evidence: Allahabad HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Accused In 2021 Panchayat Elections Bribery Case

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against accused allegedly offering illegal gratification to the voters in 2021 Panchayat Elections.

The Lucknow Bench was deciding an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) filed for quashing the summoning order issued against the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the criminal proceedings against him.

A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed said, “In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to provide any evidence or mention of bribery by the applicant or his agent, which is a crucial element for an offense under Section 123 of the Act and the FIR does not contain any allegations that fit the definition of promoting enmity between classes on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, which is required for an offense under Section 125 of the Act.”

Advocate Prashant Vikram Singh appeared for the applicant while AGA Ankita Tripathi appeared for the opposite parties.

Facts of the Case -

A case was registered against the applicant under Sections 188, 171-E, 269, and 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 123 and 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA). In 2021, an FIR was lodged at the Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, against the applicant and six other named and 15 unknown persons. It was alleged that they were offering illegal gratification to the Voters in Panchayat Election and one co-accused was distributing Sarees to the Voters. They all were collectively and deliberately flouting the COVID-19 guidelines.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that as per FIR, the applicant was distributing Sarees to the voters through co-accused whereas, there was no such mention of the bribery given by the applicant or by his agent or by any other person with the consent of the applicant, which in itself was the most essential ingredient to make out an offence under Section 123 of RPA. Hence, the applicant prayed before the court to quash the criminal proceedings against him.

The High Court in the above regard observed, “In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.”

The Court added that the allegations appear to be fabricated and aimed solely at harassing the applicant, who has no prior criminal record and is a reputed member of society. It further noted that the statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC by the informant and the witness do not add any substantive evidence to support the charges.

“The letter dated 03.02.2021 from the Secretary (Home), Government of India, and the subsequent orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in CRLP No. 7787 of 2021, emphasize the need to review and withdraw criminal cases related to alleged violations of COVID-19 protocols. This directive was not considered by the Learned Court while taking cognizance of the matter”, it said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the summoning order issued against the applicant and entire proceedings under the relevant provisions of IPC and RPA are against the spirit and directions issued by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings against the applicant.

Cause Title- Ishrat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:43064)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Prashant Vikram Singh, Akshaya Pratap Singh, and Bhanu Pratap Singh.

Opposite Parties: AGA Ankita Tripathi

Click here to read/download the Judgment