.webp)
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Dr. Ramesh Sen arising from allegations concerning the conduct of the 2020 elections of the Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA). Justice Madhu Jain held that the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating, criminal conspiracy, common intention or the alleged computer-related offences against him.
The Court was dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the chargesheet in FIR No. 25/2021 registered at Special Cell, Delhi, and the summoning order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from the IOA elections held in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Ramesh Sen, who was then the Vice-President of the association, had been appointed as the Election Officer. The elections were conducted through an online voting platform.
Two vendors, Right2Vote and Nityam Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., were considered for conducting the election. Right2Vote was initially selected, but Nityam was subsequently engaged and an MOU was executed on September 29, 2020.
Following the elections, objections were raised concerning the vendor selection, payment to Nityam, election data and the functioning of the online voting system. An FIR was registered after a complaint to the Cyber Cell. Although Dr. Sen was not named in the FIR, he was later included as an accused in the chargesheet.
The prosecution alleged, among other things, that he changed the vendor without following the prescribed procedure, paid ₹1,91,750 to Nityam from his personal account and failed to ensure an independent third-party audit.
Court's Observation
Justice Madhu Jain said the central issue was not whether every administrative decision taken during the election was correct, but whether the material in the chargesheet disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged against Dr. Sen.
On the cheating allegation, the Court noted that the chargesheet did not identify any false representation made by him, any person deceived by him, or any property delivered because of dishonest inducement.
The Court observed that
“suspicion arising from an administrative decision cannot substitute the statutory requirements of a penal provision.”
The Court also found no material showing an agreement between Dr. Sen and Nityam to manipulate the elections. There was no communication, instruction or other material connecting him with alteration of votes, voter records, access logs or the election result.
On the Information Technology Act allegations, the Court noted that there was no material showing that Dr. Sen had accessed the voting platform without authorisation, altered data, used another person's password or electronic identity, or impersonated anyone.
The Court further held that the mere fact that the election was conducted electronically could not, by itself, attract penal provisions of the IT Act.
Summoning Order Also Set Aside
The High Court found that the Magistrate's summoning order did not distinguish between the role of Dr. Sen as Election Officer and that of Nityam, which operated the electronic platform.
Justice Jain observed that an order issuing summons need not contain an elaborate discussion, but it must show application of mind to the allegations, material on record and the ingredients of the offences.
The Court also considered a settlement reached in related civil proceedings but clarified that its decision to quash the prosecution was primarily based on the chargesheet itself and not merely on the settlement.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed Dr. Ramesh Sen's petition. It quashed the chargesheet in FIR No. 25/2021 insofar as it concerned him, along with the August 17, 2022 summoning order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, and all consequential proceedings against him.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to Dr. Sen and did not express any opinion on the merits of the proceedings against the remaining accused.
-300x169.webp)
