Patna HC Quashes Young Man’s Polling-Booth Case After 10 Years, Citing Dead Informant And Three Witnesses Who Repeated His Account

The petitioner challenged the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan’s order taking cognizance under Sections 451, 188, 171C, 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case arising from an alleged disturbance at a polling booth on 24 April 2016.

The informant, a Dafadar, reported that the petitioner abused and prepared to assault presiding officers, briefly interrupting voting; the petitioner was apprehended and handed to the sector officer.

The informant later died. The case diary contained statements from three other officials on duty, each repeating the informant’s account; no presiding officer, sector officer or voter was examined.

Cognizance was taken on the police charge sheet, without a written complaint by the public servant concerned for the alleged Section 188 IPC offence.

The High Court stayed further proceedings in 2019.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172–188 IPC except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom that person is administratively subordinate.

In C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the Supreme Court held that the complaint requirement is mandatory and that a charge under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed in its absence; the absence of such a complaint does not, by itself, invalidate the entire prosecution.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the judgment also identifies its current counterpart as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court held that cognizance under Section 188 IPC was without jurisdiction because the case proceeded on a police charge sheet, not the written complaint required by Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC; the informant’s report to the police did not satisfy that requirement.

As to the remaining offences, the Court considered that the informant was dead, the three available official witnesses merely repeated his account, and no presiding officer or other person said to have been directly affected was examined. The alleged conduct involved abuse and preparation to assault, but no assault or injury occurred, voting resumed after a brief interruption, and no property was damaged.

Given the passage of time and the resulting evidentiary circumstances, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

The interim order was merged in the final order.