- In Amitabh Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand and another (2019), the Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary upheld charges against Amitabh Choudhary (petitioner), former IPS Officer, under Section 143 of IPC by stating that following the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct and the issuance of prohibitory decree under Section 144 CrPC, the common objective of having a public political meeting by an election candidate would prima facie result in the formation of an unlawful assembly and act in violation of the prohibitory decree issued under Section 144 CrPC.
- In this case, the petitioner had carried out a political meeting without acquiring any preliminary authorization and had breached the Model Code of Conduct by giving an unauthorized political speech. He was thus, charged under Sections 126(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act (1951), 143, and 188 of the IPC. Therefore, the petitioner pled under section 483 CrPC to quash the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in relation to the aforementioned offenses.
- Section 126(1) of the RP Act (1951) states that no individual must hold any public gathering or procession in connection with an election, either directly or indirectly.
- Section 143 IPC states that anybody who is a member of an unlawful assembly would face imprisonment of any kind for a time that can last up to six months, a fine, or both.
- Section 144 of the CRPC authorizes the Executive Magistrate of any state or territory to issue an order restricting the gathering of four or more people in a particular place. Those who participate in the 'illegal assembly' may also be charged with rioting.
- Section 188 of the IPC deals with noncompliance to an order validly proclaimed by a public officer. Pashupati Kumar vs. State of Bihar 2019 SCC Online Patna 654, Thanuskodi and Another vs. Inspector of Police and Another 2019 SCC Online Madras 35292 and Dharmesh Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar 2016 SCC Online Patna 3622 are some instances that demonstrate the application of this section. These cases were also mentioned in this particular case.
- Section 483 of the Civil Procedure Code establishes the High Court's duty to continuously supervise Judicial Magistrates' courts.
- Section 195 (1) (a) of the CrPC states unequivocally that a Court is incompetent to take cognizance of any infraction punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC unless the relevant public worker files a written complaint. The same was observed in C. Muniappan v. State of TN (2010) 9 SCC 567.
- The Hon'ble Court in light of the aforementioned cases and sections observed that there was no impediment to establishing the FIR in the present case. However, because cognizance of the offense under Section 188 Indian Penal Code was not taken on a complaint, the order taking cognizance under Section 188 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law on technical grounds as the same did not align with the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) of CrPC.
- Furthermore, the Court contended that the charge under Section 143 of the IPC was made out against the petitioner in light of the claims and documents gathered during the inquiry hence the order taking cognizance of the offense under Section 143 IPC was sustained.
- Finally, regarding the charge under Section 126 of the Representation of People Act, the Court held that because the incident occurred more than 48 hours after the election, the stipulation for establishing an offense under Section 126(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was not satisfied. Therefore, resulting in the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi's impugned order to be set aside.
- Therefore, the Hon'ble HC of Jharkhand authorized the criminal miscellaneous petition to be partially qualified.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
