Judgment :- 1. This petition is filed to quash all proceedings in S.T. No. 88 of 1987 pursuant to Annexure A1 complaint on the file of the judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. Petitioners are the Chief Editor, Managing Editor and the Printer and Publisher of Malayala Manorama, Kottayam ST. No. 88 of 1987 is a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent, who has contested the 1987 General Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 23-3-1987 from Ranni Constituency as an independent candidate. On 13-3-1987, the private complaint was filed by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence under S.171-F read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of the publication of the editorial in the Malayala Manorama daily on 11-3-1987. The contention of the petitioners is that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken into account they do not make out an offence and the complaint has been filed only with a view to harass them. Annexure Al is the complaint. Complainant's case is that the editorial published in the Malayala Manorama daily on 11-3-1987 would constitute an offence under S.171C punishable under S.171F of the IPC. Annexure A2 is the true copy of the editorial published in the Malayala Manorama daily. Annexure A3 in the copy of the election result published on 25-3-1987. It shows that the 1st respondent secured only 44 votes out of 1,02,201 voters in the Ranni Constituency. 2. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, a reading of Annexure A2 or the complaint does not disclose an offence punishable under S.171C of the IPC. To attract S.171C of the IPC it has to be established that the petitioners voluntarily interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. What has been published in the editorial, Annexure A2, is only a general statement highlighting the difficulties encountered on account of a large number of candidates contesting the elections. The opinion of a newspaper or friendly advice made by it to the voters will not constitute offence under S.171C of the IPC. What has been published in the editorial, Annexure A2, is only a general statement highlighting the difficulties encountered on account of a large number of candidates contesting the elections. The opinion of a newspaper or friendly advice made by it to the voters will not constitute offence under S.171C of the IPC. As a matter of fact, by Annexure A2, the request made to the voters is only to exercise their votes freely and not to be influenced by the gimmics shown by the rebel candidates and those candidates who do not put forward any definite programme or who do not have any clear manifesto to offer to the people. In order to establish undue influence the complainant has necessarily to prove that the influence was such as to deprive the voter of the free exercise of his will. It has been held in Amir Chand v. Sucheta Kripalani (AIR 1961 Punj. 383 at 385) as follows: "An advice, argument, persuasion or solicitation cannot constitute undue influence. Honest intercession, even importunity, falls short of controlling a person's free exercise of his will. A persuasion, which leaves a person free to adopt his own course, is not undue influence". 3. It is not at all possible to hold that the publication of the editorial constitutes an offence under S 171C punishable under S.171F of the IPC. The essence of undue influence is the use of unfair pressure upon a voter depriving him from the free exercise of his judgment. As Annexure A2 editorial or the allegations in the complaint does not make out an offence, it has to be held that taking cognizance of the case and issuance of summons to the petitioners are not warranted. As no offence has been made out by the publication of the editorial, I find that the continuance of the proceedings in the court below will be an abuse of process of the court. In the result, the proceedings in S. T. No. 88 of 1987 pursuant to Annexure Al complaint are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed.