Judgment 1 J-APL No.930.2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 930 OF 2018 1) Magfoor Ahmad Noor Ahmad, Aged : 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Ganga Nagar, Akola. 2) Mohd. Javed Abdul Razzaque, Aged : 43 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Khair Mohd. Plot, Akola, Tq. and District – Akola. 3) Syed Zafar S/o Syed Gafoor, Aged : 32 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Bagban Pura, Washim, District – Washim. 4) Syed Rashid Syad Fateh Mohd., Aged : 34 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Firdous colony, Akola, Tq. and District - Akola. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola District – Akola. 2) Mahendrakumar S/o Suryabhan Atram, Aged : 38 years, Occ.: Naib Tahsildar, C/o. Tahsil Office, Akola, District – Akola. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. R. D. Karode, Advocate for applicants. Ms. H. N. Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 04, 2026 2026:BHC-NAG:11823-DB Judgment 2 J-APL No.930.2018.odt ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.274/2018, dated 22.09.2018, registered with Police Station, Ramdaspeth Akola, District Akola for the offences punishable Section 32 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short the “Act of 1950”), Section 134 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the “Act of 1951”) and under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”). 3. The FIR indicates that in wake of the ensuing Assembly Elections and for the purpose for preparation and correction of the voters’ list, the Sub-Divisional Officer/Electoral Registration Officer, Akola vide letter dated 20.08.2018, appointed the applicants as Booth Level Officers. They were directed to remain present in the Sub- Divisional Office, Akola to collect the relevant material regarding voter registration. However, the applicants did not reach the Sub- Divisional Office to collect their appointment letters and other material. Therefore, as per the instructions issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer/Electoral Registration Officer, Akola, Naib Tahsildar, Akola lodged a complaint with Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola Judgment 3 J-APL No.930.2018.odt against the applicants. On the said complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I have gone through the chargesheet. 5. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the alleged offence under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 and Section 134 of the Act of 1951 have been committed by the applicants. Therefore, it is necessary to reproduce the said Sections. 6. Section 32 of the Act of 1950 reads as under : “32. Breach of official duty in connection with the preparation, etc., of electoral rolls.— (1) If any electoral registration officer, assistant electoral registration officer or other person required by or under this Act to perform any official duty in connection with preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll or the inclusion or exclusion of any entry in or from that roll, is without reasonable cause, guilty of any act or omission in breach of such official duty, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine. (2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any such officer or other person for damages in respect of any such act or omission as aforesaid. (3) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sub-section (1) unless there is a Judgment 4 J-APL No.930.2018.odt complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Election Commission or the chief electoral officer of the State concerned.” 7. It appears that as per Section 32 of the Act of 1950, the Court shall take cognizance if the complaint is made by order of, or under authority from, the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State concerned. Whereas, in the present case, the FIR has been lodged by the Naib Tahsildar under the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, Akola. The offence under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 cannot stand for two reasons; firstly, cognizance can be taken only on the complaint made to the Court and not on police report; secondly, the said complaint should be made either by order of, or under authority from the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer. In the present case, the order of registration of FIR was not given either by order of, or under authority from, the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State concerned. Therefore, the offence registered under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 does not sustain in the eye of law.. 8. Moving to Section 134 of the Act of 1951, the same is reproduced as under : “134. Breaches of official duty in connection with election. —(1) If any person to whom this section applies is without reasonable cause guilty of any act or omission in Judgment 5 J-APL No.930.2018.odt breach of his official duty, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. [(1A) An offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.] (2) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any such person for damages in respect of any such act or omission as aforesaid. (3) The persons to whom this section applies are the district election officers, returning officers, assistant returning officers, presiding officers, polling officers and any other person appointed to perform any duty in connection with the receipt of nominations of withdrawal of candidatures, or the recording or counting of votes at an election; and the expression "official duty" shall for the purposes of this section be construed accordingly, but shall not include duties imposed otherwise than by or under this Act . 9. No doubt, this offence is cognizable by the police but the fact remains that Section 134 of the Act of 1951 is applicable only to the persons enumerated in sub-clause 3 of Section 134 of the Act of 1951. The applicants are appointed as Booth Level Officers which is not included in sub-section 3 of Section 134 of the Act of 1951. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 134 of the Act of 1951 is not applicable to the present applicants who were appointed as Booth Level Officers. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that the offence punishable under Section 134 of the Act of 1951 also does not stand against the applicants and therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Judgment 6 J-APL No.930.2018.odt 10. What remains is the offence under Section 188 of the IPC, which is reproduced as under : “188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.— Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.— It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. 11. It appears that the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC is in respect of disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant in respect of directing to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. If somebody disobeys the said direction, he shall be punished under Section 188 of the IPC. For attracting Section Judgment 7 J-APL No.930.2018.odt 188, disobedience of the order must relate to abstinence from doing something or to a person taking certain order with certain property in his possession or his management. 12. Here, firstly there is no promulgation of any such order which was allegedly not followed by the applicants by not obeying the said order. Secondly, the said order does not depict that the Sub- Divisional Officer/Electoral Registration Officer, Akola gave any direction to the applicants to take certain order with certain property in their possession or under their management. For this reason, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that even Section 188 of the IPC will not be attracted in the present case. 13. Having found that the applicants have not committed the offence under Section 134 of the Act of 1951 and Section 188 of the IPC and the fact that the prosecution cannot be initiated under Section 32 of the Act of 1950 on a police report, registration of the offence against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 14. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Judgment 8 J-APL No.930.2018.odt Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.274/2018, dated 22.09.2018, registered with Police Station, Ramdaspeth Akola, District Akola for the offences punishable Section 32 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, Section 134 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and under Sections 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby quashed and set aside against all the applicants. 15. The criminal application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 19:38:10