The Patna High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed an FIR registered against a vehicle owner and driver for allegedly violating election rules during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The case pertained to alleged illegal campaigning using a vehicle with party posters, which authorities claimed breached the Model Code of Conduct and provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The petitioners—a vehicle owner and his driver—approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 130 and 133 of the RP Act and Section 188 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged on the allegation that their vehicle was used for campaigning without permission on election day.

Their counsel argued that:

• The FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence.
• Section 130 of the RP Act requires an act of canvassing within 100 meters of a polling station, which was not alleged in this case.
• Section 133 of the RP Act concerns illegal hiring of vehicles for transporting voters, which was also not alleged.
• Section 188 of the IPC, which deals with disobedience to public servant orders, requires a written complaint by the concerned officer to initiate legal action, which was absent.

The State, on the other hand, argued that campaigning on election day is prohibited and that the vehicle carried political posters, constituting a violation. They maintained that Section 130 of the RP Act and Section 188 of the IPC are cognizable, and the FIR was justified.

However, the Court examined all documents, including the written complaint, seizure list, and official correspondences. It found:

• No proof that the vehicle was within 100 meters of any polling booth (essential to invoke Section 130 RP Act).
• No allegation that the vehicle was hired to transport voters (required for Section 133 RP Act).
• No formal complaint from a public servant (mandatory for invoking Section 188 IPC).

The Court emphasized that the disobedience under Section 188 IPC must cause or be likely to cause actual obstruction, injury, or annoyance, and mere procedural violation isn’t sufficient. Moreover, it reaffirmed that FIRs cannot be filed directly under Section 188 IPC unless a written complaint is filed by the concerned public servant.

Accordingly, the Court held that allowing the criminal case to proceed based on the FIR would constitute an abuse of the legal process and set aside the FIR.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment is crucial for protecting citizens from arbitrary criminal prosecution, particularly during election periods when the Model Code of Conduct is in force. It clarifies that:

• Mere procedural violations do not automatically attract criminal liability.
• Legal safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code must be strictly followed before prosecuting individuals under laws like the RP Act or IPC.
• State authorities must adhere to due process before filing FIRs related to election conduct.

For the public and political workers, this ruling reaffirms their constitutional protections against unlawful criminal proceedings, especially during sensitive times like elections.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the FIR disclosed any cognizable offence under Section 130 or 133 of the RP Act?
  ➤ No. The required conditions (e.g., proximity to polling station, hiring for transporting voters) were not met.
• Whether an FIR can be registered under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint by the concerned public servant?
  ➤ No. Section 195(1) CrPC bars courts from taking cognizance of such offences without a complaint.
• Can continuation of prosecution under these sections be allowed?
  ➤ No. It would be an abuse of the legal process.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Parveen Amanullah v. State of Bihar, 2017 (3) PLJR 101
• Dharmesh Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, 2017 (1) PLJR 401

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278
• State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh, (1994) 4 SCC 95
• C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567
• Pratik Sinha v. State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 274
• Anirudh Prasad Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav v. State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 33259 of 2013

Case Title
Faisal Rahman & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 972 of 2019

Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 102

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam and Ms. Anita Kumari — for the Petitioners
• Ms. Divya Verma (AC to AAG-3) — for the State

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjOTcyIzIwMTkjMSNO-pP2kb4jxKP4=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.