PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reena Devi and Another v. State of Haryana
2023:PHHC:098595
Coram HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
FACTS:
In the present instance, an FIR has been filed against the two petitioners based on a complaint submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Mahendergarh. The complaint alleges that petitioner No.1 submitted her nomination documents for the election of Municipal Councilor, Ward No.14, while petitioner No.2 submitted his nomination papers for the election of Municipal Councilor, Ward No.5 of the Municipal Committee in Mahendergarh on 11.05.2016. These submissions were supported by their affidavits. However, both petitioners failed to disclose their ownership of property No.B-11/221/1 Shopping Complex, located at Old Ram Leela Ground, Mahendergarh, in the aforementioned affidavits. This omission led to the submission of false affidavits along with their nomination papers, indicating a deliberate intent, and thereby, they are accused of committing offenses under Sections 199 and 420 IPC (Indian Penal Code) and Sections 13-D and 125-A of the Representation of the People Act.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
It cannot be asserted that the petitioners obtained ownership of property No.B-11/221/1, a shopping complex at Old Ram Leela Ground in Mahendergarh, through the agreement to sell stated in Annexure P-4, which is an unregistered document. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners were not proprietors of the aforementioned property when they submitted their nomination papers and corresponding affidavits. The State has not successfully demonstrated that the information provided by the petitioners in their affidavits was incomplete or that they withheld essential details about their assets during the nomination filing. The prosecution has also not convincingly proven any malicious intent on the part of the petitioners when they submitted their nomination papers and accompanying affidavits. Both petitioners were elected as Municipal Councilors. Those dissatisfied with the election results, including losing candidates or other concerned parties, had a viable option to file election petitions in accordance with Section 75 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules 1978 to challenge the election of the petitioners. Given these reasons, the current petition was granted.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Srijan Gargreenadeviandanrvsstateofharyanaon1august2023-484630
