The Supreme Court has held that private individuals can file criminal complaints against elected candidates for offences under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that they furnished false information or concealed information in their election affidavits.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that such complaints do not attract the restrictions under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires a complaint by the concerned public servant for certain specified offences.

The Court held that Section 195(1) of the CrPC does not include Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which prescribes punishment for candidates who knowingly furnish false information or conceal information in their nomination papers or affidavits.

“If indeed it were the intention of the legislature that cognizance of any offence relating to furnishing of false information by a candidate in an affidavit with intent of being elected in an election could only be taken if the complainant were a public servant, the same could have been provided by an amendment of Section 195, CrPC,” the Court observed.

Justice Datta, who authored the judgment, noted that Section 125A was introduced in 2002, while Section 195 of the CrPC was amended in 2006. The legislature did not include Section 125A in the list of offences covered by Section 195, the Court said, adding that the omission must be treated as deliberate.

The Court further held that there is no provision in any enactment stipulating that a complaint concerning an offence under Section 125A can only be lodged by a public servant. It also relied on the provision in Section 125A that the punishment prescribed applies “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”.

The judgment came in an appeal filed by Rajkumar Madki against a Karnataka High Court decision quashing his criminal complaint against Dr. Shailendra Beldale, a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elected from the Bidar constituency in 2023.

Madki had alleged that Beldale furnished a false declaration regarding his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination papers. He filed a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru, alleging an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.

The Karnataka High Court had quashed the complaint, holding that the restrictions under Section 195(1) of the CrPC applied and that the complaint could be initiated only by the Election Commission of India or the concerned public servant, rather than a private individual.

Before the Supreme Court, Beldale's counsel argued that allowing private complaints could encourage frivolous criminal proceedings against returned candidates, potentially undermining the purpose of Section 125A. The counsel also relied on an Election Commission press note issued in June 2020, stating that the Commission would take up complaints indicating serious omissions in candidates' affidavits and refer them to investigating authorities on a case-by-case basis.

Rejecting the legal basis adopted by the High Court, the Supreme Court clarified that the Election Commission's guidelines and press notes do not bind courts in interpreting statutory provisions.

“Interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts,” the bench observed.

The Court, however, did not revive the criminal proceedings against Beldale. It noted that the allegation concerning his residential address had been prima facie rebutted by the documents placed on record and that the possibility of conviction appeared remote. Allowing the proceedings to continue would only consume judicial time, it said.

The bench accordingly upheld the High Court's decision to quash the complaint, albeit for different reasons. It clarified that magistrates are empowered to deal appropriately with frivolous complaints or proceedings instituted to harass elected candidates, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The appeal was disposed of on these terms, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate; Mr. S. B. Mathapati, Advocate; Mrs. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Advocate; Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Yash S. Tiwari, Advocate; M/s S-Legal Associates, AOR.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gourish Khashampur, Advocate; Ms. Akhila Wali, Advocate; Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Advocate; Mr. Nanda Kumar K.B., Advocate; Mr. Dharm Singh, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Kanyalur, Advocate; Ms. Divya Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Ashritsai P. Torgal, Advocate; Ms. Tanya Chhillar, Advocate; Mr. Aryaman Dubey, Advocate; M/s Nuli & Nuli, AOR.