Allahabad HC dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's plea to quash criminal proceedings in 2014 model code violation case

The order was passed by the bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Singh on Monday. "I find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated October 21, 2022 passed by the revisional court and in the order dated Aug 4, 2002, passed by the trial court as both the orders are well considered, reasoned and speaking orders. Accordingly, the prayers made in this application are refused," the court ordered.

It may be noted that Flying Squad Magistrate namely Prem Chandra had lodged an FIR under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 at Musafirkhana police station in Amethi district alleging that Kejriwal flouted the Model Code of Conduct by making a controversial statement in 2014.

After the completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against him.

The trial court took cognizance against the accused on September 6, 2014, under Section and summoned him.

In his application filed in the High Court, Kejriwal had prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of the case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 relating to the Musafirkhana police station which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate.

He had further prayed for the quashing of the chargesheet filed in the same case.

The bench observed, "In the present case, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner regarding the offence punishable under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act and after the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against him for the offence punishable under the same section."

It said, "Section 125 of Representation of People Act, 1951 reads, 'Promoting enmity between classes in connection with the election.

"Any person who in connection with an election under this Act promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of the citizens of India shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

The court observed, "The present case relates to the alleged speech of the petitioner on May 2, 2014 in connection with an election which allegedly attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India."

It observed, "The politicians are required to observe more caution in their speeches as they have to rule the country and they should promote the spirit of common brotherhood, fraternity and harmony amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.

"The politicians as a citizen of India have also to abide by fundamental duties as provided in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, apart from the restrictions and guidelines imposed by the Representation of People Act, 1951, because they are not above the Constitution."

The bench said, "But what we are experiencing nowadays is that some of the politicians have no control over their fire-brand speeches with a view to attract or misguide the voters in their favour. Such a tendency should be discontinued because the public of India has now become much more aware of the real truth. The politicians must use the Parliamentary Language. However, these observations shall not affect the merits of the present case."

It said, "The petitioner has challenged the order dated August 4, 2022 whereby the discharge application of the present applicant has been rejected by the trial court before the revisional court and the revisional court dismissed the revision vide order dated October, 21, 2022 upholding the order of the trial court."

The bench said, "Since the case has to be tried, so I make it clear that the observations made in the preceding paras of this order are only for the disposal of this application, filed under Section 482 CrPC. These observations will not influence the trial court while deciding the case. In the aforesaid terms, the application is dismissed."