CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.36304 OF 2005 ******* IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ******* DILIP KUMAR YADAV-------------PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR----------------OPP.PARTY ******* FOR THE PETITIONER : M/S CHITRANJAN SINHA & KAMESHWAR KUMAR FOR THE STATE : Mr. DAMODAR PD. TIWARY, APP. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of First Information Report being Dumra P.S. Case no. 71 of 2005 dated 18th May, 2005 lodged under Section 125A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 2 and under Sections 171(G), 177, 181, and 198 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The relevant facts of the case is that the petitioner was a candidate for election for Local Body Constituency wherein as per requirement along with his nomination furnished the required details supported with affidavit. Subsequently, one of the person lodged a complaint before the Authority that in the affidavit, furnished by the petitioner, some required details were deliberately concealed as to pendency of four criminal cases besides some properties standing in his name. On receipt of the complaint, report from different agencies were called for. A few were received but remaining was awaited in spite of that first information report was lodged against the petitioner. 4. It would be relevant to mention that affidavit on behalf of the petitioner was furnished on 18th June, 2003 and out of four criminal cases, mentioned in the complaint petition and the first information report, one is Nanpur P.S. Case No. 32 of 2003 wherein on 31st May, 2003 itself final form no.57 3 of 2003 was submitted finding the case not true. Remaining three cases were just instituted two days before on 16th June, 2003. 5. My attention was drawn towards Section 33 A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 which reads as such: “33-A. Right to Information-- (1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether – (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he has been convicted of an offence (other than any offence referred to in sub- section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub- section (3), of section 8 ) and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. (2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the information specified in sub-section (1). (3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is 4 delivered.” 6. Sub-section (1) requires furnishing information of the cases pending against the persons swearing in affidavit wherein charge has been framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction but neither in the first information report nor in the complaint petition, there is any whisper that in the three cases instituted just two days before, after completing all processes charges were framed against the petitioner had it been so it could have been incumbent for the petitioner to furnish such information but in absence of any such thing by mere institution of the case about which the petitioner may or may not have any knowledge, neither he was required to furnish any information nor by non- furnishing he appears committing any offence. 7. So far concealment of three properties said to have been standing in the name of the petitioner, first information report itself indicates that out of three with respect to one property report was received stating that the property stands in the name of mother of the petitioner, obviously petitioner is not expected to 5 disclose the properties in the name of his mother/father, etc. unless he has derived any personal right, title or interest. First information report further discloses that report as regards to remaining two properties were not received. In absence thereof there is no material attracting commission of any offence by the petitioner. 8. It would not be out of place to mention that investigation of the case is now complete and with respect to other two properties reports have come that they are also not standing in the name of petitioner. Inspite of that charge sheet appears to have been submitted and cognizance has also been taken as appears from the two supplementary affidavits enclosing relevant papers filed by the petitioner. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed hereunder at Annexure-A letter no.3 / ER / 2004 –JS –II dated 02nd June 2004 issued under signature of Sri S.R. Kar, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, wherein in the third paragraph the following directions appears to have been given:- “In order to deal with cases of filing false information, the Commission had directed that where any complaint regarding 6 furnishing of false information by any candidate is submitted by anyone, supported by some documentary evidence, the Returning Officers concerned should initiate action to prosecute the candidates concerned by filing formal complaints before the appropriate authority.” 10. From the above it appears that before entertaining any complaint by an stranger regarding concealment of required information by a candidate while submitting his nomination paper should be supported by some documentary evidence but in the case in hand wherein enquiry etc. was initiated only on allegations leveled by one Baidyanath Prasad, a person, who lost said election at the hands of the petitioner, but without any supporting material. It could have been duty of the Authority initiating enquiry and subsequent proceeding against the petitioner is to first obtain supporting materials from the person coming forward with allegation but nothing appears then and as stated the first information report itself on the materials and averments made, discloses commission of no offence at the hands of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court finding it necessary to exercise inherent 7 jurisdiction knowing fully well that such power should be exercised sparingly but the instant case appears squarely covered under the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in famous case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal; A.I.R. 1992 SC 604, followed in several cases. 11. In the result, the first information report in Dumra P.S. Case no. 71 of 2005 dated 18th May, 2005 is quashed and application stands allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 15th September, 2010, AAhmad/ (NAFR).