The Supreme Court clarified that a private individual may file a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging a false affidavit under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 without needing to satisfy the precondition of Section 195(1) CrPC, which limits cognizance of certain offences to complaints by public servants. The Court upheld the High Court’s order quashing the complaint, but on the ground that Section 195(1) does not apply to offences under Section 125-A RoP Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sri. Rajkumar Madki, filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 21 August 2023, alleging that Dr. Shailendra Beldale, a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elected from Bidar constituency in 2023, made a false disclosure regarding his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination paper, thereby committing an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Key Facts
- Complaint dated 21 August 2023 lodged before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
- The complaint gave rise to PCR No. 9254 of 2023 in CC No. 29813 of 2023.
- The respondent, Dr. Shailendra Beldale, was elected as MLA from Bidar constituency in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections.
- The allegation concerned a false statement in the affidavit filed with the nomination paper under Section 33(1) of the RoP Act.
- The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, by judgment and order dated 7 March 2025, allowed Writ Petition No. 7458 of 2024 filed by the respondent and quashed the criminal complaint.
- The High Court held that Section 125-A RoP Act must “pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) CrPC”, thus only the Election Commission could lodge a complaint.
- Special leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court on 20 July 2026.
- The appeal was heard and judgment delivered on 16 October 2026.
Procedural History
- 21 August 2023: Complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC by appellant.
- Date unspecified: Magistrate took cognizance; proceedings commenced.
- 7 March 2025: High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petition and quashed the complaint.
- 2024: Writ Petition No. 7458 of 2024 filed (year indicated).
- 20 July 2026: Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal.
- 16 October 2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the High Court’s order, to allow the criminal complaint to proceed, and to have the respondent tried for the alleged offence under Section 125-A RoP Act. No specific monetary relief was claimed.
The Legal Issue
Whether Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is an offence to which the procedural bar of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies, i.e., whether a private individual can file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC against a returned candidate for allegedly furnishing false information in an election affidavit, or whether such complaint must be lodged only by the Election Commission or a subordinate public servant.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellant contended that Section 125-A RoP Act creates a distinct offence of filing a false affidavit, which is not enumerated among the offences listed in Section 195(1) CrPC (Sections 172-188 IPC). He relied on the legislative history: Section 125-A was inserted by Act 72 of 2002, effective 24 August 2002, while Section 195 CrPC was amended in April 2006, indicating that the Legislature deliberately omitted Section 125-A from the purview of Section 195(1). He further argued that the non-obstante clause in Section 125-A (“notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”) shows that the rigour of Section 195(1) does not apply to complaints by private persons. He cited the Election Commission’s press notes as non-binding and maintained that the High Court erred in importing the restriction.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent argued that Section 125-A RoP Act pertains to election-related false disclosures and, like other election offences, should be subject to the procedural safeguard of Section 195(1) CrPC to prevent frivolous private complaints. He relied on the High Court’s reasoning that a voter’s right is limited to filing an election petition, not to initiating criminal proceedings, and that the duty to probe false affidavits lies with the Election Commission. He cited the decision in Raghunath Deshpande v. State of Karnataka (2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9709) where the High Court had held that private complaints for certain IPC offences are barred by Section 195(1), and urged the Court to extend the same principle to Section 125-A RoP Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court commenced with a plain reading of Section 195(1) CrPC, which bars courts from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172-188 IPC except on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or a subordinate public servant. It noted that the text of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 does not mention Section 125-A RoP Act. Turning to legislative history, the Court observed that Section 125-A was introduced into the RoP Act by Act 72 of 2002, effective 24 August 2002, whereas Section 195 CrPC was amended in April 2006. The Legislature’s conscious insertion of Section 125-A four years prior to the amendment of Section 195, coupled with the omission of Section 125-A from the latter, indicated a deliberate choice not to subject Section 125-A to the rigour of Section 195(1).
The Court further emphasized the non-obstante clause in Section 125-A (“notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”), which expressly overrides any conflicting provision, including Section 195(1) CrPC. Consequently, a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging an offence under Section 125-A RoP Act is not required to satisfy the public-servant precondition.
To bolster its conclusion, the Court quoted:
"Section 125 -A of the RoP Act should pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) , Cr. PC."
The Court clarified that this statement, advanced by the respondent’s counsel, was incorrect; the correct position is that Section 125-A RoP Act need not pass muster of Section 195(1) CrPC. It added that even if a complaint is lodged with mala fide intent or is frivolous, the magistrate retains the inherent power to dismiss such proceedings to prevent abuse of judicial process.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order of 7 March 2025 quashing the criminal complaint filed on 21 August 2023 under Section 200 CrPC alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court held that Section 195(1) CrPC does not apply to offences under Section 125-A RoP Act, so a private complaint need not satisfy the public-servant precondition; however, magistrates retain the power to dismiss baseless or harassing complaints. No monetary relief or costs were awarded; the parties shall bear their own costs. Judgment delivered on 16 October 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Private Complaints Maintainable under Section 125-A RoP Act
Private individuals may now file criminal complaints under Section 200 CrPC for false affidavits under Section 125-A RoP Act without first approaching the Election Commission. This expands the avenue for addressing election-related misconduct.
Section 195 CrPC Does Not Apply to Private Complaints for Election Offences
The procedural bar of Section 195(1) CrPC is confined to offences enumerated therein (Sections 172-188 IPC). Since Section 125-A RoP Act is not listed, the rigour does not arise, and the complaint is maintainable by any private person.
Magistrates Retain Authority to Dismiss Frivolous or Harassing Complaints
Even where a complaint is technically maintainable, magistrates may dismiss baseless, harassing or mala fide complaints to prevent misuse of judicial process. Practitioners should ensure complaints are substantiated and prepared to address potential objections regarding maintainability.
- Advise clients that private complaints for false election affidavits are now permissible.
- Verify the sufficiency of evidence before filing to avoid dismissal for frivolity.
- Be ready to argue that Section 195(1) CrPC does not apply to Section 125-A RoP Act.
