The Allahabad High Court has observed that not fulfilling the promises made in the election manifesto of a party cannot lead to arrest of a person.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak dismissed a petition challenging the order passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court rejecting an application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC.
The facts culled out from the pleadings of the petitioner (Khurshidurehman S. Rehman) are that the petitioner has moved an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC with an allegation that Bhartiya Janata Party headed by the respondent No. 2 had wooed the voters with several promises but failed to fulfil the promises as made in the Election Manifesto-2014, which was promulgated by BJP in the Parliamentary election conducted in 2014. Therefore, he has committed crime of fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonesty, defamation, deceiving and falls allurement.
The application was rejected by the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh) vide its order dated 1.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court, the applicant has preferred a revision dated 12.10.2020. Aforesaid revision was dismissed affirming the order passed by the trial court.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that both the courts have illegally rejected an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC without applying their mind and without properly appreciating the allegations made against the respondent No. 2 and the document on record. Non fulfilment of promises as made in the Election Manifesto- 2014 makes out a clear cut criminal case against the respondent No. 2, who is liable to be summoned and tried under different sections of IPC.
Per contra, senior counsel has contended that on the face of an application, no cognizable offence is made out against the respondent No. 2 to be tried by the court. It is further contended that non-fulfilling promise, if any, as averred in the Election Manifesto-2014 does not make out any cognisable offence against the persons who have promulgated the election manifesto. It has further been contended that non-fulfilling the conditions as averred in the election manifesto does not come within the ambit of any law, and therefore, it cannot be enforced under any legislation. Trial court as well as revisional court has rightly rejected an application after going through the contents of the application and evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner.
After considering the submission, the Court noted that alleged betrayal of promises as made in Election Manifesto-2014 has been tried to be shown as cognisable offence and the Magistrate has been expected to issue a direction for investigation qua said commission of cognizable offences.
The Court opined that it would not be befitting to elaborate the scope and nature of cognizable offence, which itself spell out from the definition as given above. In a complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC, the petitioner has made an allegation of committing a crime of criminal breach of trust, dishonesty, deceiving, defamation and false allurement on the ground that BJP led by respondent No. 2 has failed to fulfil his promise as enunciated in its Election Manifesto-2014. Voters are allured to cast vote in favour of the party by magical promises.
“Paramount question for consideration in the present petition lies in a narrow compass as to whether non-fulfilment of any promise as made in the Election Manifesto-2014 amounts to commission of cognisable offence in the eye of law. On a pointed query, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to demonstrate any penal provision for betrayal of a party concerned from the promises as made in the Election Manifesto-2014”.
The Court clarified that the election manifesto promulgated by any political party is a statement of their policy, view, promises and vow during the election, which is not the binding force and the same cannot be implemented through the courts of law. Even there is no penal provision under any statute to bring the political parties within the clutches of enforcement authorities, in case, they fail to fulfil their promises as made in the election manifesto.
It is further observed by the Court that Magistrate as well as the revisional court has discussed the contents of the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC moved by the present petitioner in detail and very consciously came to to conclusion that on the face of record, no case is made out for the purposes of investigating the cognizable offence. Record also reveals that the petitioner has casually invoked the authority of the Magistrate and the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC has been filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass the respondent No. 2. The application/complaint does not, prima facie, disclose any commission of cognizable offence.
“After perusal of the judgment passed by the courts below, it cannot be said that they have decided the matter in a cursory manner without applying their judicial mind. Non-occurrence of any cognizable offence is also one of the paramount condition which averted the courts below from issuing a direction for investigation in exercise of powers under Sections 156 (3) CrPC”,the order reads.