The Supreme Court has held that a private complaint alleging an offence committed under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act is maintainable and the same need not pass muster of the rigours of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Apex Court was considering a special leave granted challenging a judgment of the Karnataka High Court allowing a writ petition presented by the respondent and quashing a complaint lodged by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “In conclusion, we hold that a private complaint alleging offence committed under Section 125-A, RoP Act need not pass muster of the rigours of Section 195, Cr. PC, as held by the High Court. If at all a complaint is lodged to harass an elected candidate or frivolous allegations are levelled therein, the laws of the country duly equip and empower the competent magistrates to pass such order(s) as they deem fit and proper commensurate with the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint was lodged by the appellant alleging that the respondent, a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly having been elected from Bidar constituency in the year 2023, had committed an offence punishable under Section 125-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951, by making a false disclosure about his residential address in an affidavit accompanying his nomination paper. The High Court was of the opinion that Section 125A of the Act also should pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC and hence, the offence has to be complained of only by the Election Commission, particularly, of the offence under Section 125A of the Act.

Issue

The issue before the Apex Court was whether Section 125-A of the RoP Act should pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) of the CrPC and whether any private person can file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. PC against a returned candidate for an offence punishable under Section 125-A.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the allegation levelled by the appellant of false declaration as to residence given by the respondent in his affidavit, had been more than effectively rebutted by him.“Thus, even at the very inception of this opinion, we record that while the impugned judgment ordering quashing of proceedings before the trial magistrate need not be disturbed, the decision on the legal question given by the High Court on the question of maintainability of the private complaint lodged by the appellant needs to be considered based on proper construction of the provisions of the Cr. PC as well as the RoP Act”, it added.

The Bench explained that sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195(1) of the CrPC impose a statutory prohibition on a Court in relation to taking cognisance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188, IPC or of abetment of/attempt to/criminal conspiracy to commit such offences, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

“It stands to reason that omission of the legislature to include Section 125-A of the RoP Act in Section 195, Cr. PC is deliberate and no court, in terms of the latter provision, would be barred from taking cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, even on the complaint lodged by a private person. This interpretation is also fortified by the absence of any provision in any enactment stipulating that a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act can only be lodged by a public servant as well as the ordainment in Section 125-A that the penalty it envisages is “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”, it explained.

The Bench was thus of the view that the rigour of Section 195, CrPC would not be applicable insofar as a complaint lodged by a private person, alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, under Section 200 Cr. PC, is concerned. “The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in returning the finding that it did”, the Bench held.

The Bench disposed of the appeal by upholding the decision of the High Court closing the proceedings before the trial magistrate.

Cause Title: Sri. Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldal (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1138)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, Advcoates Sharanagouda Patil, S. B. Mathapati, Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR M/s S-legal Associates, 2041, Advocates Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Yash S Tiwari

Respondent: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, AOR Nuli & Nuli, Advocates Gourish Khashampur, Akhila Wali, Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar K.b, Dharm Singh, Abhishek Kanyalur, Divya Sinha, Ashritsai P. Torgal, Tanya Chhillar, Aryaman Dubey

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice Dipankar DattaJustice Sheel Nagu

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.