The High Court has quashed the proceedings against Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati and party’s national general secretary Satish Chandra Mishra in a criminal case registered against them during the 2013 Assembly elections.
The case was registered in the jurisdiction of a magistrate court in Jewargi and subsequently transferred to the additional chief metropolitan magistrate court in Bengaluru.
The complaint was filed after cash was found on Mayawati and Satish Chandra Mishra when they attended a meeting.
The FIR was registered under IPC sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty). The petition was filed by Mayawati and Mishra, praying to quash the entire proceedings.
The allegation was that the petitioners had snatched the currency bundle from the officer. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no use of criminal force.
The high court government pleader contended that the very act of preventing the officer from counting the currency would make out a case under section 353 of the IPC.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that insofar as section 188 of the IPC is concerned, clearly what is required under section 195 of CrPC is filing of a complaint in terms of section 200 of CrPC. The court held that the information in the case does not stand the test and requirement of a complaint under section 195 of CrPC for the offence under IPC section 188.
Insofar as section 353, the court observed that the process of subjecting the petitioners to questioning regarding the cash was not only completed in the second instance, but was also accepted. The Election Commission of India’s communication confirmed this and stated that in light of the acceptance of the explanation given by the petitioners, there was no seizure of cash by the checking team.
“The only assertion in the complaint is that the currency note bundle was not permitted to be counted and was snatched away from the hands of the official. That by itself which is the version of the complainant would not be sufficient even if accepted as amounting to criminal force as envisaged under section 353 of IPC,” the court said.
Watch latest videos by DH here: