[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sanjay Narayan Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14852-DB
J-apl1254.25 final.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1254 OF 2025
Sanjay Narayan Meshram,
Aged about : 66 years,
Occupation : Member of Legislative Assembly Umred,
presently residing at Bunglow No.15,
Pearl Heritage City,
Near Kanha Celebration Lawn,
Umred Road, Umred District, Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Kuhi Police Station, Nagpur Rural.
2. Shrikant Suresh Dhoke,
Amended as per
Court's order dated Age : 36 years,
4.11.2025. Occupation : The Zonal Officer,
having address at
Sub-Divisional Water Conservation
Depapartment, Kuhi, Nagpur : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Rahul D. Dhande, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A.G. Mate, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd DECEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the
Charge-sheet/Final Report bearing No.27/2025, dated 2.3.2025,
pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Kuhi bearing Summary Criminal Case No.158/2025 and
the First Information Report No.568/2024 dated 20.11.2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 174 and 223 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 132(1) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. As per the averments in the application, the applicant
is the sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from Umred
Constituency. It is further stated that the Election Commission of
India declared elections for the Legislative Assembly of the State of
Maharashtra to be held on 20th November, 2024 and the applicant
was one of the contesting candidates. It is further stated in the
application when the voting for the elections was ongoing, there
were several complaints received from the voters of polling booth
No.115 that the Officers of the said booth were conducting the
election process at a very slow pace, as a result of which the voters
had to stand in queue for long period. Therefore, there was an
apprehension that such a slow pace of voting would dissuade voters
from standing and ultimately exercising their franchise. The
applicant being a candidate was concerned about the said grievance
and therefore, informed the Election Officer at the said booth to
speed up the process.
4. However, it is alleged in the application that on
20.11.2024, the respondent No.2 i.e. the Zonal Officer for Poll
Booth No.107 to 115 filed a Police complaint alleging that on
20.11.2024 at around 2.45 p.m. the applicant along with 5 to 6
people entered the polling booth and raised a complaint/grievance
regarding the voting process being very slow. It is further alleged in
the First Informant Report that the Booth Officer tried to explain
the situation but the applicant was not in a mood to leave the said
booth and tried to obstruct the voting process. It is further alleged
that the videography of the said incident was done on the mobile
phone which is contrary to the Model Code of Conduct. Based on
these allegations, offences as mentioned under the above sections
were clamped upon the applicant and the First Informant Report in
question was lodged. It is this First Information Report which is
challenged in the present application.
5. We have heard Mr. Rahul D. Dhande, learned counsel
for the applicant and Mr. A.G. Mate, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that lodging
of First Information Report is nothing but grave abuse of process of
Court and no case is made out even after a meaningful reading of
the same. He submits that there is a clear bar as provided under
Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 223 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that as far as
offence under Section 174 is concerned, it speaks about punishment
for undue influence or personation at an election. It is his
submission that even meaningful reading of the said Section would
show that the conduct of the applicant as showed in the First
Informant Report would not come within the purview of undue
influence. As far as offence punishable under Section 132 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 is concerned, it speaks
about penalty for misconduct at the polling station and, therefore it
is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that
sub-section (1) of the said Section contemplates that any person,
who misconduct himself may be removed from polling station by
the Presiding Officer and only when the person so removed from a
polling station re-enters the polling station, as contemplated under
sub-Section (3) of Section 132 the punishment as prescribed under
the said section it can be inflicted. He relies on a judgment of this
Court reported in 2023 (4) Bom C.R. (Cri.) 865, Swarraj @ Raj
Shrikant Thackeray Vs. State of Maharashtra and others to buttress
his plea.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1 submits that the gist of the complaint is regarding
offence being committed by the applicant during the conduct of the
election. He further states that a meaningful reading of the First
Information Report, at least prima facie, would show that the
applicant is guilty of committing offence. He further says that the
investigation in the matter is complete, during which the spot
panchanama has been recorded and, therefore, it would not be a fit
case to quash the entire proceeding at this stage. It is his further
contention that even if in view of the provisions of Section 215,
complaint has to be filed by the public servant, it is a settled
proposition of law that investigating machinery can be set into
motion by anybody for the offences committed. He, therefore,
prays for rejection of application.
8. In the backdrop of these facts we have carefully
perused the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties. As far as offence under Section 174 is concerned, it states
about punishment for undue influence or personation at an
election. As the applicant was one of the contesting candidates for
the election there is no question of any undue influence or
personation at an election. Therefore, in our view the offence
punishable under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
is not made out. Furthermore, as far as offence under Section 223
is concerned, cognizance of the said offence is expressly barred by
virtue of Section 215 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The said Section is in pari materia with Section 195 of the Criminal
Procedure Code which has been held to be mandatory in various
cases. Thus, no Court can take cognizance of offence punishable
under Section 223 which speaks about disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant without a complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other public servant who is
administratively subordinate. However, in the present case, the
complaint is given by one Shri Shrikant Dhoke, who happens to be
a Zonal Officer of Zone No.11. No material has been placed on
record or in the accompanying charge-sheet that he is duly
authorized to make such a complaint.
9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that offence under Section 223 is not made out, in view of
the express bar of Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
10. Furthermore, as far as offence under Section 132(1) of
the Representative of the People Act, 1951 is concerned, as rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that
sub-Section (1) thereof contemplates that any person who
misconduct himself or fails to obey the lawful directions of the
Presiding Officer may be removed from the polling station by such
Presiding Officer or any Police Officer on duty. Sub-Section (3) of
said Section 132 provides that a person who has been removed
under sub-Section (1) if re-enters the Polling Station without the
permission of the Presiding Officer then only in that event the said
person would be liable for punishment as provided under said
Section. It is, therefore, clear that the person misconducting
himself has firstly to be removed from the said Polling Station as
contemplated under sub-Section (1). However, only when he
re-enters the premises i.e. the Polling Station, penal provision
comes into picture. As can be seen from the First Information
Report, there is nothing on record to show that sub-Section (1) of
Section 132 was complied with. Thus, in our view sub-Section (1)
of Section 132 of the Representative of People Act, 1951 is also not
made out. The situation therefore would squarely fall within the
laid down parameters of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604,
1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party."
11. We, therefore, pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The Charge-sheet bearing No.27/2025
culminated into Summary Criminal Case No.158/2025 emanating
from the First Information Report bearing No.568/2024 by the
respondent No.2 against the applicant before the respondent No.1
for offences punishable under Sections 174 and 223 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita read with Section 132(1) of the
Representative of People Act is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The application is disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/12/2025 16:49:38
