The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings against two persons who were accused of influencing voters through a wedding invitation card by seeking vote for Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a gift.

The accused persons preferred a Writ Petition before the Court, challenging the proceedings registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked, “The issue in the case at hand is, printing an invitation card. It does bear the name of the printer, the accused No.2. How a wedding invitation card is projected to become an election pamphlet by the complainant or even the police who conducted investigation to file a charge sheet is ununderstandable.”

The Bench observed that if a person is wanting to get married describes the greatest gift to him is voting for Narendra Modi yet again, long before the notification of calendar of events, it is preposterous as to how the crime itself could have been registered and upon that, investigation by the police and filing of the charge sheet.

Advocate Vinod Kumar appeared for the Petitioners while High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Rashmi Patil appeared for the Respondents.

In this case, the Respondent i.e., a flying squad during the elections to the Indian Parliament registered a Complaint against the Petitioners (Accused) that they indulged in influencing the voters during the election through a wedding invitation card. The wedding invitation card, had in it written, “voting Narendra Modi is the gift for my wedding”. The wedding invitation was printed on March 1, 2024 and the elections were notified by the Election Commission of India (ECI) by notifying calendar of events on March 16, 2024.

For an invitation card that was printed on March 1, the Respondent registered a Complaint on April 19. The said Complaint became a crime for the offences punishable under Section 127 of RP Act. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in June month and the concerned Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 127A and registers a case against the accused persons. Being aggrieved by taking cognizance of the offence, registering the crime, and issuance of summons, the accused approached the High Court.

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Section 127A deals with restrictions on printing of pamphlets, posters inter alia. It directs that no person shall print or publish any election pamphlet or poster which does not bear on its face, the names and addresses of the printer and publisher thereof. Therefore, the soul of the provision is printing and publishing any election pamphlet or a poster, which obviously is during an election. Section 127(3)(b) defines what is an election pamphlet or a poster, which means, a handbill or a document distributed for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or group of candidates.”

The Court said that, what is a pamphlet and a poster has not borne judicial consideration and, in such circumstance, the dictionary meaning of the words “pamphlet and poster” are to be drawn in.

“The word pamphlet is defined to be a very thin book, with paper cover containing information about a particular subject. The word poster is defined as a large notice, often with a picture on it pasted in a public place for the purpose of advertisement. The aforesaid are, the dictionary meaning of the two words found in Section 127A(3)(b) of the Act. If the provision afore-quoted and the interpretation afore-rendered are taken note of, the offence emerges only during an election qua a pamphlet or a poster used during such elections”, it enunciated.

Furthermore, the Court took note of the fact that the admitted date of notification of calendar of events by ECI is on March 16, 2024 and the other admitted date is, printing of the wedding invitation which is on March 1, 2024.

“The crime is recklessly registered, so is the charge sheet, on a reckless investigation. … The 2nd respondent is the flying squad of Sullia Assembly constituency. It is trite that such flying squads come into existence once the calendar of events are notified and for the purpose of observation during the elections”, it added.

The Court observed that, if an event has already happened long before the notification of the calendar of events, the flying squad finding an invitation later could not have resorted to registration of a crime.

“… even if the content of the complaint is taken as true, it would not amount to an offence under the provisions that have been made penal under any enactment. In such cases, the crime should be nipped in the bud”, it also elucidated.

The Court, therefore, concluded that permitting further proceedings against the Petitioners would on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused persons.

Cause Title- Shivaprasad & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:52040)

Click here to read/download the Judgment