Smt Suhani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7907 MP

                                   1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                         MCRC No. 14399 of 2023
              (SMT SUHANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 12-05-2023
      Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri PPS Vazeeta, learned PP for respondent/State.

Shri V.K. Jha, learned counsel for complainant. Heard on admission and I.A.No.5993/2023.

Petitioner who happens to be a Member of Zila Panchayat, Bhind is aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by JMFC, Lahar Bhind

whereby application of complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been decided and direction was given to the Police Authority to register the FIR. In pursuance thereof, FIR has been registered vide Crime No.37/2023 Police Station Mihona, District Bhind for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and petitioner is aggrieved by both those developments.

It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that at the time of filing her nomination form she omitted to refer her marital status and details of her children in her nomination form. This appears to be an irregularity / omission which attracted election petition at the instance of complainant which is pending

before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. It is further Submitted that said offence is apparently contrary to the compliance referred in Section 31-A of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam 1995 wherein personal information of candidate is required to be given. In case of non-disclosure of said information, as per Rule 21(1) (D) (iv) of the The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 provides appropriate proceedings against the

candidate by way of election petition.

Meanwhile, complainant also lodged a police complaint for alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Mihona but the same was not accepted therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. over which impugned order has been passed. The same is illegal because offence primarily is electoral in nature and surreptitiously tried to be given penal flavour so as to harass the petitioner. The allegation is that omission o f marital status and particulars of children is cheating with public at large. Therefore, offence under Section 420 of IPC was added. Same analogy may render the election procedure and candidature of an aspirant vulnerable qua

penal proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Rekha Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr." S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1561/2019 decided on 07.03.2019 to submit that in similar facts and circumstances, case was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Chapter-X of IPC which deals regarding Contempts of the lawful authority of public servants. According to him, offence under Section 172 or 181 or 188 of IPC at best could have been relied upon by the complainant and not beyond that.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that because of conduct of petitioner case has been registered.

Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and submits that she has concealed her information in nomination form and therefore, she cheated with public at large. Therefore, offence under Section 420 of IPC has rightly been invoked against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Subramaniam and

another Vs. S.Janki and another (2020) 16 SCC 728.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

This is the case where petitioner is a member of Zila Panchayat and facing wrath of prosecution on the pretext of Section 420 of IPC. When an election petition is already pending on the basis of non-disclosure of her marital status and particulars of children in nomination form then prima facie offence under Section 420 of IPC appears to be preempting the controversy. Same cannot be permissible in law especially when Part-X of the I.P.C. specifically mentions those cases where some false affidavits / false information has been provided by the person concerned and those offences can only be taken care of in accordance with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and not otherwise.

Cumulatively, case is made out for interim relief. Effect and operation of impugned order dated 02.03.2023 shall remain stayed and no further proceedings shall be held by the Police Authority till next date of hearing.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE

Ashish*

VISHAL UPADHYAY Digitally signed by VISHAL UPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=5d5050008f4c040023a64cb030d9c80d2 5cbf5f3eb4f56fa864a20db4fbe3d3e, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=637E939E833627AE8CC13D85E5F 2383A287E83C6CDFA6347A00E482772314FE9, cn=VISHAL UPADHYAY Date: 2023.05.12 19:24:12 -07'00'