HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33514 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 7171 of 2022 (State vs. Rajeev Sharma) arising out of Case Crime no. 118 of 2022 under sections 134(1) of Representation of People Act, 1950, PS- Sidhari, District Azamgarh and charge sheet dated 15.03.2022 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 19.07.2022. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he has been assigned duty of Returning Officer at the time of General Election in the year 2022. Certain unused counter-file of the postal ballot papers were retaining with the applicant and the same has not been deposited within the stipulated time which culminated into registration of FIR at Case Crime no. 118 of 2022 wherein the applicant has been implicated in pursuance to Section 134(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, wherein after conducting detailed investigation concerned Investigating Officer preferred charge sheet on dated 10.04.2022 whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on dated 19.07.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted through specific fact mentioned under para 18 of the affidavit that the applicant has been transferred in the same year i.e. 2022 from Azamgarh to District Mirzapur Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sri Rajeev Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) as Block Development Officer and as such he was not aware about any summoning order issued by learned court concerned and once, it has been brought to the notice of the applicant, he immediately rushed to the concerned Court by way of receiving information through an Advocate and thereafter preferred the instant application for seeking quashing of the entire proceeding on the basis of the bonafide of the applicant which clearly demonstrates that the unused counter-file of the postal ballot paper have already been deposited but the same was not deposited well within the stipulated time since there was a hurled chaos maintained by the workers of some Political Party in the same premises which caused certain delay in depositing the same. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that Section 134 of Representation of People Act, 1950, clearly demonstrate that if any person to whom this section applies is without reasonable cause guilty of any act or omission, any breach of his official duty he shall be punished. In the instant matter none of the act performed by the applicant comes under the ambit of Section 134(1) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 since whatever the duties were assigned to the applicant has already been performed with slight delay in depositing the counter-file of the unused postal ballot. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that registration of the FIR in pursuance to Section 134(1) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 is also not maintainable but due to transfer of the applicant, the same could not be challenged at the time of lodging FIR against the applicant since the same is barred under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. 6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of the narration of the FIR described in detail that at the time of checking of the vehicles, it has been transpired that certain unused postal ballot has been carried out by the applicant and the same was to be deposited before the same authority. It is also submitted by learned AGA that there is crystal clear negligence and breach of official duty which was entrusted to the applicant. 7. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties, the legal ground taken up by learned counsel for the applicant NA528 No. 33514 of 2025 2 must be appreciated that there is hardly any provision available for registration of the FIR under Section 134(1) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, since the same is barred by Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. along with other arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no case of breach of official duty since there is slight delay only in deposition of the unused counter-file of the postal ballot which has been caused only at the behest of chaos maintained by worker of some Political Party which caused little delay and as such the applicant cannot be saddled with breach of his official duty. 8. 8. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the applicant is quite uncalled for and being the Government Official, dragging him into unwarranted criminal proceeding is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The entire proceeding of Case no. 7171 of 2022 (State vs. Rajeev Sharma) arising out of Case Crime no. 118 of 2022 under sections 134(1) of Representation of People Act, 1950, PS- Sidhari, District Azamgarh and charge sheet dated 15.03.2022 as well as summoning order dated 19.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicant herein. 9. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly. September 11, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 33514 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad