Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Grant of interim protection, challenged – Petitioner filed pre-election writ petition against the proposed elections and when failed to get interim order, filed post-election writ petition and also criminal complaints – Respondent no.1 to 3 filed petitions for quashing the criminal complaints – Pending disposal of criminal complaints, respondent no.1 to 3 were granted interim stay of all further proceedings including their arrest before the High Court – On special leave petition by the complainant, held: It was patently an election dispute which was sought to be converted to a criminal case – The facts were so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that High Court correctly found it to be a fit and proper case to grant interim reliefs to Respondents 1-3 –It was completely wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that the High Court was swayed by the pendency of civil writ proceedings –High Court was perfectly justified in granting interim protection to Respondents 1 to 3 and in ensuring that the supremacy of the ballot is not sabotaged by the authority of the police.
Dismissing the SLPs, the Court
HELD: It was patently an election dispute which was sought to be converted to a criminal case. More often than not election disputes are fought on different turfs, such as polling booths, police stations and court rooms. Sometimes, persons who raise these disputes manage to camouflage their real motive by words clothed in high moral fiber and strong legal content. But unfortunately, the petitioner could not do it successfully in this case, as the election disputes came to the court first before the petitioner could fall back upon allegations of loan fraud. Fortunately, the High Court saw through the game. The facts are so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that the High Court correctly found it to be a fit and proper case to grant interim reliefs to Respondents 1-3. It is completely wrong on the part of the petitioner to contend that the High Court was swayed by the pendency of civil writ proceedings. The High Court actually took note of the manner in which the color of the entire proceedings changed from February 2020 to February 2021 and it is in that background that the Judge took note of the pendency of civil proceedings and the overlapping of allegations. The High Court was perfectly justified in granting interim protection to the Respondents 1 to 3 and in ensuring that the supremacy of the ballot is not sabotaged by the authority of the police. [Paras 20, 25, 27][863-F-H; 864-A; 865-C-D, F]
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on.
Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors (2019)
6 SCC 107 : [2019] 5 SCR 876; K. Jagdish v. Udaya Kumar GS (2020) 14 SCC 552; N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) SCC Online SC 13 – held inapplicable.
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC
288 : [1987] 1 SCR 702 23; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2021) SCC Online SC 315; Skoda Auto Volkswagon India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2020) SCC Online SC 988 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.