Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against 6 Accused Of Canvassing At Polling Booth Citing Vague, Generalised Allegations

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases registered against six individuals for alleged election-related offences, citing "vague" and "generalised allegations" which were not supported by foundational facts as well as serious infirmities in the prosecution's case. While doing so, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the courts were guardians not just against crime but against misuse of criminal process also. The court added that while democracy needs strict adherence to electoral discipline, not every election-related offence could be converted into a criminal trial. The court said that the entire prosecution rested solely upon interested police witnesses without independent corroboration. It said that while absence of independent witnesses may not always be fatal, in election-related prosecutions occurring in crowded public spaces, the total absence of neutral testimony assumes great significance. It further said that the allegations, even if accepted, "appear to disclose at best a minor election-time commotion" occurring in the heat of political activity without any actual disruption of polling. “Democracy undoubtedly demands strict adherence to electoral discipline. Yet, criminal law cannot be stretched to convert every election-time disagreement into a full-fledged criminal prosecution bereft of statutory ingredients. Courts are guardians not only against crime but equally against misuse of criminal process. The inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 528 BNSS exists precisely to prevent such misuse and to secure the ends of justice. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations contained in the FIR and final report, even if accepted in entirety, fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners,” the court said. The court was hearing petitions filed by the men seeking to quash the cases registered against them for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 353, and 506(i) of IPC and Sections 130 and 132 of the Representation of People Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai. As per the prosecution case, on April 6, 2021 at 6:00pm, the petitioners allegedly entered the prohibited 100 meter radius of the polling booth and canvassed votes. When this was questioned by the defacto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, they threatened him with dire consequences and thus obstructed him from discharging his official duties. The petitioners argued that the entire case was politically motivated since they were affiliated with the opposition party. It was argued that though the alleged offence is said to have taken place near a polling booth, no independent witnesses had been examined by the prosecution including the polling official or Presiding Officer. The petitioners also pointed out that the observation mahazar does not indicate the reference point from which the alleged 100 meter prohibited zone is measures. The petitioners also pointed out that the essential ingredients to attract the sections as alleged did not exist. The prosecution on the other hand argued that the truthfulness of the allegations cannot be gone into in a quash petition. It was argued that election related offences have serious ramifications upon the democratic functioning and thus could not be prematurely terminated. The court noted that that the essential ingredients necessary for attracting the offences was not made out. It also noted that though the prosecution alleged that the petitioners had canvassed votes within 100 meters of polling station, the point from where the 100 meter radius was measured was not mentioned. The court also noted that the prosecution had not examined the Presiding Officer or any polling official even though they would have been the most competent witnesses regarding polling disruptions. Thus, noting that prosecution could not be permitted to continue on vague and generalised allegations, the court was inclined to quash the case and ordered accordingly. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side) Case Title: Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241 Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2792 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against 6 Accused Of Canvassing At Polling Booth Citing Vague, Generalised Allegations

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against 6 Accused Of Canvassing At Polling Booth Citing Vague, Generalised Allegations

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers