High Court Quashes FIR Against Former Punjab CM Charanjeet Singh 'Channi' For Violating Model Code Of Conduct During 2022 Polls

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR filed against former CM of Punjab, Charanjeet Singh @ Channi, for violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during the 2022 State elections.

Channi along with the late singer Siddhu Moosewala were booked under Section 188 IPC for campaigning in the Mansa region beyond the prescribed time limit.

In allowing the plea, Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "in the present case, the prosecution was launched by filing a police report under section 173 (2) CrPC for the commission of an offence punishable under section 188 IPC, whereas section 195(1)(a)(i) bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC unless there is written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of their lawful order."

It was observed that the police report not being a complaint, could not have been made the basis for taking cognizance under section 188 of the IPC, and the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to summon the accused. Given the above, dismissing the application for discharge violated the mandatory provision of section 195(1) of CrPC, 1973, added the Court.

The Court was hearing a plea for quashing of the FIR  lodged under Section 188 IPC (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) in 2022 in Mansa District, Punjab.

According to the prosecution, during the Punjab elections in February 2022, the Dy. Commissioner of Mansa in the light of Chapter No.8, Section 8.2 (8.2.1) of the Model Code of Conduct Manual had passed an order to enforce section 144 CrPC and directed that the election campaign shall come to an end after 06.00 PM.

However, it was alleged that the petitioner, Charanjit Singh @ Channi along with over 400 persons and Shubhdeep Singh @ Sidhu Moosewala, were reported to be campaigning door to door, after 6.00 pm on that day, in the presence of F.S.T. Team of the Civil Department.

It was submitted that on the written complaint of Dy. Commissioner Mansa, an FIR was registered against the accused persons for deliberately breaching the orders passed by the Dy. Commissioner and provisions of MCC, which attracted the provisions of section 188 IPC.

It was submitted that after completing the investigation since Sidhu Moosewala had passed away, the investigating officer filed a challan against the petitioner.

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that, "the fundamental reason to disrupt the criminal trial is the express bar of Section 195 CrPC, which applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. Section 1951 CrPC clearly states that the Court cannot take Cognizance of the Police Report/Challan. Compliant is defined under section 2(d) of CrPC, which excludes the Police Report/Challan under section 173 CrPC, and the cognizance can be taken only on a complaint filed by the complainant in Court under section 200 of CrPC." 

Neither the police report/Challan under section 173(2)3 CrPC could have been filed in the Court, nor could the Court have taken cognizance of the offence based on such a police report, added the Court.

Reliance was also placed upon the Apex Court's verdicts in the cases of C. Muniappan and ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) and Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi (2017) to underscore the importance of compliance with Section 195 CrPC for the prosecution.

Justice Chitkara thus observed that "given the express provisions provided under Section 195 of the CrPC,  criminal prosecution under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) cannot be launched by filing a police report under section 173 CrPC but can only be initiated by the concerned public servant by filing a complaint under section 1904 (a) CrPC and not under 190(b) CrPC and "the concerned Court is empowered to take cognizance only when it is filed by the persons as mentioned in section 195 CrPC and not otherwise."

In light of the above, the Court granted the relief, and the complaint along with the police report under Section 173 of the CrPC filed in the FIR was set aside.

Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Advocates Nikhil Ghai, Prabhdeep S. Bindra, Nalini Singh, Amanpreet S. Pannu appeared for the petitioner.

Ferry Sofat, Addl. AG, Punjab for State.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 257

Title: Charanjit Singh @ Channi v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download for the order