2019 LS Polls| Patna HC Quashes Case Against Navjot Sidhu For Allegedly Cautioning Muslims Against Splitting Their Votes

The Patna High Court last week quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu for allegedly violating the restraining orders while appealing and cautioning Muslims against splitting their votes in his address before a public gathering during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections campaign.

Justice Sandeep Kumar opined, “In my considered opinion, the part of the speech on which the informant has relied upon to show that the petitioner was asking for votes on the ground of religion does not support the allegation. The petitioner has not made any statement which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity.”

“From the content of the speech, it does not appear that the petitioner has tried to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between two classes of people or two religions but in fact he has only said that Mr. Owaisi was trying to divide the votes of Muslims. The statement of the petitioner has not depicted any communal tension and violence. It has only cautioned the people of the Muslim community about dividing their votes by Mr. Owaisi and therefore, the allegation that the petitioner was demanding votes on the name of religion is false,” Justice Kumar added.

The above ruling came in an Interlocutory Application filed challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the ACJM-I, Katihar, by which the Magistrate had taken cognizance against Sidhu for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

the informant asserted in their written report that in April 2019, Navjot Singh Sidhu (the petitioner and Minister in the Government of Punjab) addressed a public gathering organized by the Indian National Congress at the campus ground of Utkramit High School, Ghatta, Barsoi.

The VST in Barsoi recorded the said public gathering and the petitioner's address. Upon reviewing the recording, the AEO Katihar, Barsoi, reported a violation of the model code of conduct by the petitioner during the speech.

Additionally, the informant claimed that upon watching the CD provided by VST, Barsoi, it became evident that the petitioner had breached restraining orders by making appeals for votes on religious grounds. Subsequently, the informant submitted a written report to the relevant police station, leading to the filing of an FIR against the petitioner under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 123 (3) and 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

The Court in its verdict observed that the provisions of Section 195 of the CrPC are mandatory and the non-compliance of these provisions would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders/ proceedings.

Since the complaint has been filed against the mandatory provision of Section 195(1) CrPC, all subsequent action shall be held to be illegal i.e., the investigation and the cognizance pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the Court said.

The Court further said that the summons issued by the trial court was without any application of mind and without following the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person should appeal for voting or refrain from voting for any person on the ground as mentioned in Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

However, the Court opined that no such appeal was made by the petitioner but he has only said about Mr. Owaisi floating a party for dividing the vote and in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 123(3) of the Act.

The Court further observed that for prosecuting a person under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the basic requirement is that the person should promote or attempted to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India. Again, in the opinion of this Court, the ingredients of Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act are not made out against the petitioner as the statements have not been made to promote or attempt to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India.

“From the speech which has been reproduced above, it is again clear that no offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is made out against the petitioner as the speech has not been made to promote or attempting to promote on the grounds of religion, race, caste or community or language, feeling of enmity or hatred between the parties,” the Court added.

“In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the offences as alleged under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 125(3)/125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are not made out and the entire prosecution of the petitioner is held to be illegal,” the Court further said while quashing the order taking cognizance 12.10.2020 and the issuance of summons.

Case Title: Navjot Singh Sidhu vs The State of Bihar and Anr

Case No.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13494 of 2023

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 146