The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely organising a meeting in a school hall to celebrate Ambedkar Jayanti does not amount to undue influence at an election under Section 171F of the IPC.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary quashed criminal proceedings against two persons who were booked over a meeting held during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The first petitioner was the principal of Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir. The allegation was that he organised a meeting in the school hall on April 14, 2024 without obtaining permission from the competent authority and in violation of the Model Code of Conduct. The second petitioner had posted about the meeting on his social media account.

An FIR was registered on the written report of an Assistant Engineer-cum-Flying Squad Officer. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet and the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 171F, 171H and 188 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners' application for discharge was later rejected.

Before the High Court, the question was whether the allegations, even if accepted as true, made out the offences for which the petitioners were being prosecuted.

On Section 171F, the Court noted that undue influence at an election is defined under Section 171C IPC. It found no allegation that either petitioner had interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. The Court observed:

“There is no allegation against either of the petitioners of interfering or attempting to interfere with free exercise of any electoral right. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the mere fact of organizing of meeting in the hall of a school to celebrate Ambedkar Jayanti cannot constitute the offence punishable under Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code.”

The Court separately found that Section 188 IPC was also not attracted. It noted that there was no reference to any order promulgated by a public servant which had been disobeyed by the petitioners. The FIR had proceeded on the allegation that the meeting was held without permission.

It further noted that there was no allegation that the petitioners knew of any promulgated order which they had violated. The Assistant Engineer-cum-Flying Squad Officer who lodged the FIR was also not alleged to have promulgated any such order.

As regards Section 171H IPC, the Court found that there was “absolutely no allegation” concerning any of the ingredients of the offence.

The High Court held that none of the offences for which the Magistrate had taken cognizance were made out against the petitioners. It accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings, including the chargesheet, cognizance order and the order rejecting their discharge plea.

Case Title: Parmanand Singh and Anr v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 2482 of 2026

Appearance: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P., for the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order