RAVINDER CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing FIR No. 103 dated 21.5.1991, P.S. Panchkula, under Section 409 IPC and Section 134 of People Representation Act, 1951.

(2.) THE brief facts, as set out in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Presiding Officer in Polling Booth No. 102, Panchkula, during the Parliamentary and Assembly Elections held on 20.5.1991. At the close of the polling on 20.5.1991, petitioner duly sealed the two ballot-boxes and went to deposit the same with the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Returning Officer, Kalka, where he placed the three boxes (one empty and two containing ballots) on the table placed at the door of the strong-room where the same being received for being kept in the strong-room. As the boxes from all over the constituency were being deposited there, there was a great rush and in the melee, somebody standing in the queue gave a push from behind, as a result of which, the table on which the ballot-boxes were lying, overturned and the boxes fell down on the floor of the strong-room. One of the ballot-boxes was mistakenly removed by the helpers of the Returning Officer and taken inside the strong-room before it was entered in the record and a receipt was issued to the petitioner. In spite of repeated protestation of the petitioner, he was issued receipt only for two ballot-boxes Le. one empty and one full and an F.I.R. was lodged by the S.D.O. (Civil)-cum-Returning Officer with the Police Station, Panchkula, bearing FIR No. 103 of 1991 under Section 409 IPC and Section 103 of the People Representation Act. It has further been stated in the petition that during the counting of votes, it was found that the missing ballot-box pertaining to booth No. 102, Panchkula, was in fact inside the strong-room. In consequence of the ballot-box having been found inside the strong-room the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Returning Officer, wrote to the S.H.O. Police Station, Panchkula for the cancellation of FIR. No. 103 vide his Memo No. 2483/Election/91 dated 17.6.1991. A Memo to this effect was also written by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Electoral Officer, Ambala, to the S.D.O. (Civil,), Panchkula, asking him to pursue the matter of the cancellation of the F.I.R. and inform him about the same. Petitioner has, thus, prayed in the petition that though as per the Authorities, the F.I.R. is liable to be cancelled, but no steps have been taken by the Authorities to get the proceedings, going on before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, dropped, with the result that the petitioner is being put to unnecessary harassment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, thus, contended that in view of the report, the present petition deserves to be allowed.