Vipin Arun Nikam vs The State Of Maharashtra

CNR No : HCBM010352552026

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by GAYATRI
RAJENDRA
SHIMPI
Date: 2026.08.03
21:15:04 +0530
GAYATRI
RAJENDRA
SHIMPI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1365 OF 2026
Shri Vipin Arun Nikam
Major of age,
Occupation : Service,
Presently working as In-charge Headmaster,
Zilla Parishad Primary, Secondary and
Higher Secondary School,
Bhoirwadi, Taluka Mulshi,
District Pune – 411057 … Applicant
Versus.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Paud Police Station.
2. The Assistant Electoral Registration
Officer (AERO) And Tahisildar, Mulshi (Paud)
Shri. Vijay Kumar Chaubey
Major of age, Occupation : Service,
203 – Bhor Assembly Constituency,
and Tahsildar, Mulshi (Paud),
Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. … Respondents
----
Mr. Dhanraj Lodha a/w Mr. Kiran Shinde i/b Mr. Saurabh Patil,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
th
DATE : 29 JULY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Mr. Dhanraj Lodha, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the
Gayatri shimpi
1
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
State.
2. Applicant, presently serving as the acting Headmaster
of Zilla Parishad Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary School,
Bhoirwadi, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, by this Application filed
under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeks to quash First Information
Report No. 0217 of 2026, registered on 09.07.2026, by the Paud
Police Station, Rural Pune (“ impugned FIR ”), for offences
punishable under Section 32 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1950 (“ RPA 1950 ”).
3. In brief, the prosecution case in the impugned FIR
Smt. Mohini Subhash
registered on the complaint lodged by
Londhe, Booth Level Officer Supervisor (“BLO Supervisor”) is that,
vide Order No. Nivadnuk/Kavi/146/2006 dated 30.06.2026, the
Applicant was appointed as the Booth Level Officer for Part No. 69.
The allegation is that the Applicant failed to perform the duties,
thereby obstructing the implementation of the direction issued by
the Election Commission and hence committed an offence under
the RPA 1950.
Gayatri shimpi
2
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
4. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of this
Application are that:-
a. Applicant was appointed as BLO Supervisor by Order bearing
No. Ja.Kr/Nivadnuk/Kavi/133/2022 dated 04.10.2022 for
Parts Nos. 50 to 59 and thereafter continued till 01.07.2023
by Order bearing No. Ja.Kr/Nivadnuk/Kavi/237/2023 for
Parts No. 61 to 70.
b. Shri. Vinod Jadhav was appointed as BLO (Booth Level
Officer) for Part No. 69.
c. By Order bearing No. Ja.Kr/Nivadnuk/Kavi/145/2026 dated
30.06.2026, the Applicant was appointed as the BLO for Part
No. 69, Mouje Bhoirwadi, in place of Shri Vinod Jadhav. By a
separate Order bearing No. Ja.Kr/Nivadnuk/Kavi/146/2026
dated 30.06.2026, the Applicant was relieved of the post of
Supervisor of Booth Level Officers (BLO Supervisor) and
Smt. Mohini Subhash Londhe was appointed as BLO
Supervisor for Parts Nos. 61 to 70. Accordingly, from
30.06.2026, the Applicant was relieved of supervisory duties
and required to assume charge as BLO for Part No. 69.
d. By representation dated 01.07.2026, the Applicant brought
to the notice of Respondent No. 2 that the Applicant was
holding the additional charge of Acting Headmaster of Zilla
Parishad Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary School,
Bhoirwadi, catering to Standards I to XII. Due to the
Gayatri shimpi
3
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
workload associated with the post of Headmaster, along with
the administrative and academic responsibilities at the
School, the Applicant would not be able to properly
discharge the newly assigned BLO duties.
e. Despite the request in the representation, within two days,
by Letter No. Ja.Kr./Nivadnuk/Kavi/157/2026 dated
03.07.2026, Respondent No. 2 directed Smt. Mohini
Subhash Londhe, BLO Supervisor, to initiate criminal action
against the Applicant under Section 32 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1950.
f. Successive Show Cause Notices dated 07.07.2026 and
08.07.2026 were issued to the Applicant. Applicant
submitted detailed written explanations dated 08.07.2026
and 09.07.2026 in response. Applicant reiterated the
difficulty of taking charge as BLO owing to his additional
responsibilities as Acting Headmaster.
g. On 09.07.2026, Applicant was served with a “Final Warning
and Show Cause Notice" through WhatsApp at around 7.30
pm and on the very same day the impugned FIR was
registered at Paud Police Station under Section 32 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950.
5. Mr. Dhanraj Lodha, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that, as a consequence of the Applicant's appointment as a
BLO, the Applicant, a member of the teaching staff, was required
Gayatri shimpi
4
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
to discharge BLO duties during school hours on teaching days. He
submits that as a member of the teaching staff, the Applicant is not
liable to perform BLO duties on the School's working days. He
submits that the instructions issued by Respondent No. 2 are
contrary to law.
6. Mr. Dhanraj Lodha submits that the representation
dated 01.07.2026, made by the Applicant to Respondent No. 2,
placed before Respondent No. 2 the difficulty faced by the
Applicant, a teacher with the additional responsibility of the post
of Headmaster of Zilla Parishad Primary, Secondary and Higher
Secondary School, Bhoirwadi, catering to Standards I to XII, which
made it difficult for the Applicant to properly perform the newly
assigned BLO duties. This difficulty resulted in the filing of the
impugned FIR. He submits that no offence has been committed by
the Applicant, much less an offence under Section 32 of the RPA
1950 and therefore the impugned FIR is an abuse of the process of
law.
7. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the State,
submits that Respondent No. 1, by Application dated 18.07.2026,
Gayatri shimpi
5
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
has applied to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Paud, seeking to have the impugned FIR treated as a non-
cognizable offence and permission to treat the impugned FIR as a
non-cognizable report.
8. The points for consideration in this Application are
whether the Applicant could be assigned to the BLO duties of roll
revisions and election work on school-teaching days, within
teaching hours and whether the facts of this case warrant
registration of an offence under Section 32 of the PRA 1950?
9. Perused records.
10. The core of the issue in this Application is that the
Applicant, a member of the teaching staff, was assigned BLO duties
during school hours on teaching days.
11. Mr. Dhanraj Lodha, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
has submitted that the grievance of the Applicant relates to the
directions of Respondent No. 2 to the Applicant to discharge BLO
duties of roll revisions and election work during school hours on
teaching days.
Gayatri shimpi
6
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
12. The averments in this Application, namely that the
Applicant is a member of the teaching staff, that the Applicant has
diligently performed his duties as a BLO or BLO Supervisor and
that Respondent No.2 has not received any complaints regarding
the performance of those duties, are facts which are neither
rebutted by any reply nor disputed .
13. Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act,
1950, read thus:
“32. Breach of official duty in connection with the
preparation, etc., of electoral rolls.-(1) If any electoral
registration officer, assistant electoral registration officer
or other person required by or under this Act to perform
any official duty in connection with the preparation,
revision or correction of an electoral roll or the inclusion
or exclusion of any entry in or from that roll, is without
reasonable cause, guilty of any act or omission in breach
of such official duty, he shall be punishable [with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
three months but which may extend to two years and
with fine].
(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any
such officer or other person for damages in respect of
any such act or omission as aforesaid.
3) No court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under sub-section (1) unless there is a
complaint made by order of, or under authority from,
the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of
the State concerned.]”
14. In Election Commission of India Vs. St. Mary’s School
1
and Others , paragraph No. 33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
1 (2008) 2 SCC 390
Gayatri shimpi
7
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
made the following observations:-
33. We would, however, notice that the Election
Commission before us also categorically stated that
as far as possible teachers would be put on electoral
roll revision works on holidays, non-teaching days
and non-teaching hours; whereas non-teaching staff
be put on duty any time. We, therefore, direct that
all teaching staff shall be put on the duties of roll
revisions and election works on holidays and non-
teaching days. Teachers should not ordinarily be put
on duty on teaching days and within teaching hours.
Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on such
duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in
law.
(emphasis supplied)
15. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
Umakant Ramkrushna Mahure and Others Vs. State of
2
Maharashtra , has made the following observations in paragraph
Nos. 4, 5 & 6:-
“4. In the case of St. Mary's School (supra), the
Apex Court has directed that all teaching staff shall
be put on the duties of electoral roll revision works
on holidays, non-teaching days and non-teaching
hours. The relevant observations of the Apex Court
appearing in para (33) of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
"33. We would, however, notice that the
Election Commission before us also
categorically stated that as far as possible
teachers would be put on electoral roll
revision works on holidays, non teaching
days and non-teaching hours; whereas
non-teaching staff be put on duty any
time. We, therefore, direct that all
teaching staff shall be put on the duties of
2 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1374 : (2022) Bom CR (Cri) 648
Gayatri shimpi
8
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
roll revisions and election works on
holidays and non-teaching days. Teachers
should not ordinarily be put on duty on
teaching days and within teaching hours.
Non-teaching staff, however, may be put
on such duties on any day or at any time,
if permissible in law."
5. In Writ Petition No. 6718/2019 and other
connected matters (supra), a coordinate Bench of
this Court reiterating the law declared by this Court
in the case of Gajanan Kashinath Bharad v. The State
of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 417/2020 decided
on 25/1/2020) held that calling upon Teachers in
Primary School to work as Booth Level Officers for
revision of electoral rolls is nothing, but violation of
provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Right to
Education Act, 2009. This Court further held that the
Teachers can be called upon to perform the duty in
relation to elections including updating of electoral
rolls during holidays and excluding the School hours
and, therefore, this Court directed that even if any
first information report is lodged against any of the
petitioners therein for refusal to perform the election
duty during School hours, the same would not be
prosecuted.
6. The law so declared by the Apex Court and
the view taken by the coordinate Benches of this
Court squarely apply to the facts of the present case
and, therefore, the first information report, which is
registered against the applicants for the offences
punishable under Section 32 of the Representation of
the People Act, 1950 and Sections 187 and 188 of
Penal Code, 1860 is not sustainable in law.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Respondent No. 2 ought not to have assigned the
Applicant to duties of roll revisions and election work during
school hours on teaching days. Even otherwise, the Respondent
No. 2 has not placed any material on record to justify any
circumstances that required the Applicant to be on election duty
Gayatri shimpi
9
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
during school hours on teaching days.
17. Considering the facts of the case in hand and the
aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court, the ingredients for registering an offence against the
Applicant under Section 32 of the RPA 1950 are not made out in
the impugned FIR. The impugned FIR is therefore unsustainable.
18. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP, is on record as
stating that Respondent No. 1, by their application dated
18.07.2026, has sought permission from the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Paud, to treat the impugned FIR as a non-
cognizable report.
19. In the wake of the above, this is a fit case for exercise
of powers under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, in terms of the
guidelines laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
3
in State of Haryana and Others v/s. Bhajan Lal and Others to
prevent abuse of process of law.
20. This Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a). Consequently, the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside.
3 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.
Gayatri shimpi
10
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49

1-APL-1365-2026.doc
21. No order as to costs.
22. Criminal Application No. 1365 of 2026 is disposed.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Gayatri shimpi
11
Uploaded on - 03/08/2026 Downloaded on - 03/08/2026 21:29:49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)