- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
RAMPRASAD S/O. VITTHALRAO BORADE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
1 Cri. Appln. No. 1437-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1437 OF 201 7
1. Ramprasad S/o Vitthalrao Borade, Age : 83 Years, Occu. Agriculture
2. Vijay Anna S/o Sampatrao Borade, Age : 69 Years, Occ. Agril., R/o. N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad
3. Chandrakant S/o Sampatrao Borade, Age : 58 Years, Occ. Agriculture
4. Tukaram Babu S/o Udhavrao Borade, Age : 71 Years, Occ. Agriculture
5. Prvin S/o Tukaram Borade, Age : 40 Years, Occ. Service, R/o. Kale Wadi Phata, Pune
6. Pankaj S/o Tukaram Borade, Age : 35 Years, Occu. Agriculture
7. Bhausaheb S/o Dattrao Gore, Age : 45 Years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Vidoli, Tq. Mantha Dist. Jalna Applicant No. 1,3, 4, 6 are R/o. Patoda Tq. Mantha,
Dist. Jalna. ..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jalna
2. The Police Inspector, Police Station, Mantha, Dist. Jalna
1
… Mr. V. S. Kadam, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondents.
...
CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.
DATE :27th NOVEMBER, 2018.
JUDGMENT [ Per : T. V. NALWADE, J. ] :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No. 3007/2017 registered with Mantha Police Station for the offence punishable Section 135 of Bombay Police Act (1951). The report was given by respondent Police Inspector due to instructions received from Returning Officer of election to Zilla Parishad. In the FIR it is contended that application was given by Punjabrao Boarade and others 16 to 17 persons that when the voting was going on, the present applicants who include one Ex-Minister of the State Government had interfered in the process and had stopped the voting process and thereby there was booth capturing. Due to receipt of this application, the police station had written to the Returning Officer Mantha to make inquiry as to whether such incident has taken place. The Returning Officer in stead of supplying information wrote back to the police station to take action on the basis of aforesaid application and then a report was given.
2
3. The learned senior counsel who argued for the applicants submitted that on that day at about 4.00 p.m Babanrao Lonikar Minister in the State Government had entered the polling center with his vehicle and with vehicle sounding siren he entered all the three booths and thereby he committed the breach of Model Code of Conduct. This application was given initially to the returning officer. The returning officer had informed that it was not possible for him to register crime against the minister as he had no such jurisdiction. Application was given to the head/controller observing the Model Code of Conduct to request to register the crime and then the application was given to Police Inspector Mantha Police Station also by Pramod Borade, the person from the side of the applicants. There is record like the statements of the staff, employees of the polling booths showing that minister had entered the place where voting was going on. The statements shows that voting was going on peacefully and voters were standing in queue. Thus the minister who was not voter had entered the polling booths and head of the Model Code of Conduct committee had written to the returning officer to take appropriate action. On that basis returning officer wrote to the center head on 17.02.2017 to take proper action and matter was reached to the police station for taking action under The Representation of the People Act, 1951 and non cognizable offence was registered.
4. The record shows that the husband of one of the candidate then
3
gave report against applicants that they had attempted to capture booths and due to that he had called the minister Lonikar and he had taken steps to ensure that there was no booth capturing. The application was given to police station and as already observed the police station made inquiry with the Returning Officer but instead of supplying information, aforesaid communication was made with police station. As such letter was received from the Returning Officer by police, the police then registered the crime for offence punishable under Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act against the applicants. Record does not show that there was booth capturing. It can be said that only due to complaint given against minister such steps was taken. It is unfortunate but fairness was not shown by the concerned like the persons involved in the election process and also the police machinery. It will be abuse of process of law, if case is allowed to be filed on the basis of aforesaid allegations made against the present applicants. In the result, following order.
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (B).
3. Rule made absolute in those terms.
[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI] [T.V. NALAWADE]
JUDGE JUDGE
ysk
4
Alert