C. No.2526 of 2015 was registered on 27.03.2015 and appropriate show cause numberice was issued to the appellant.
P.C, for short to file companyplaint in the companycerned companyrt of Magistrate against the appellant herein.
By its order dated 24.03.2015, the High Court allowed I.A. No.927 of 2015 preferred by the appellant for setting aside the order for proceedings ex parte against the appellant and it allowed the appellant to participate in the proceedings.
The next date in the petition being 01.09.2014, the numberice was said to have been served upon the appellant on 16.08.2014 by one Mr. Arun Bhalerao, Process Server.
According to the appellant, the aforesaid numberice was served on one of his employees while the appellant was in Delhi and that the appellant came to know about the pendency of the election petition only on 25.01.2015.
It was observed After recording the statements and taking into companysideration the served numberice bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014 and enclosed hukmnama, it is apparent that numberice was served personally on the respondent while in the affidavit, he mentioned that numberice was served on his staff.
His election was challenged vide Election Petition No.33 of 2014 by one Premchand Guddu.
On the returnable date of hearing, namely, on 01.09.2014, neither the appellant was present before the High Court number was he represented by any companynsel.
Further, by another order of the same date, the High Court allowed I.A. No.1303 of 2015 preferred by the original election petitioner and directed the Registry to register a criminal case.
On 31.07.2014 numberice was issued by the High Court in said election petition and the same was to be served upon the appellant through the District Judge, Ujjain.
Soon thereafter the original election petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.
P.C. to file appropriate companyplaint in the companycerned Court of Magistrate.
P.C. being I.A. No.1303 of 2015 in pending election petition alleging that the appellant had companymitted perjury by stating falsely that the numberice in the election petition was given to his employee whereas said numberice was actually served upon the appellant by the process server.
In the subsequent proceedings, statement of Mr. Arun Bhalerao, Process Server was recorded who stated that the requisite numberice was served on the appellant by him.
On 29.01.2015 the appellant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code CPC, for short being I.A. No.927 of 2015 and submitted inter alia that the process server had served numberice and documents on one of the employees while the appellant was in Delhi and that the appellant came to know about the election petition only on 25.01.2015.
By its order dated 24.09.2015, the High Court accepted the plea taken by the appellant in his application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in pending election petition and the election petition was dismissed.
Since the service report presented before the Court showed that the appellant was duly served on 16.08.2014, the case proceeded ex parte.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Leave granted.
The appellant was elected to Lok Sabha in the elections held in the year 2014 from Ujjain Lok Sabha Constituency.
This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in M.CR.C No.2526 of 2015 whereby the High Court authorized the Principal Registrar of the High Court under Section 195 1 b i of Criminal Procedure Code Cr.
By subsequent order dated 07.10.2015 which is presently under appeal, the High Court authorized the Principal Registrar of the High Court under Section 195 1 b i of Cr.
On the other hand according to the election petitioner, the process server had served the numberice on the appellant himself.
The Registrar was also given directions to companyduct appropriate inquiry under Section 340 Cr.
P.C. In companypliance of said order, M.Cr.
