The Supreme Court said that Section 125-A was inserted in the RoP Act in 2002.
NEW DELHI: A voter can now not only cast a vote in an election but can also drag an election candidate to court and initiate criminal proceedings for lying and furnishing a false declaration as Supreme Court has ruled that a complaint filed by a private person alleging an offence under Section 125-A of Representation of People Act (filing false affidavit) is maintainable and the Election Commission’s nod was not needed.Explaining the interplay between Section 125-A of Representation of People Act and Section 195(1) of the CrPC which says that no court shall take cognisance of any offences punishable under sections 172 to 188, including the offence of furnishing false information to a public servant, the top court held that Section 125A of RoP Act does not come within the ambit of Section 195 of CrPC and a court can take cognisance of a private complaint.
The court’s ruling will further empower the electorate against candidates who lied in their affidavits.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu quashed the Karnataka HC order which had held that “right given to the voter is only to file an election petition, and not to register a private complaint of crime which is the duty of the Election Commission, if it wants to do so”.SC said that Section 125-A was inserted in the RoP Act in 2002, while Section 195 of CrPC was amended in 2006, and that the omission of the legislature to include Section 125-A of the RoP Act in Section 195 of CrPC was deliberate and no court would be barred from taking cognisance of an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, even on the complaint lodged by a private person.
“Should we read into Section 195 of CrPC a prohibition in respect of Section 125-A of the RoP Act also, apart from those expressly included? If indeed it were the intention of the legislature that cognisance of any offence relating to furnishing of false information by a candidate in an affidavit with intent of being elected in an election (referred to in Section 125-A of the RoP Act) could only be taken if the complainant were a public servant, the same could have been provided by an amendment of Section 195, CrPC since Section 125-A of the RoP Act is of fairly recent origin.
”SC also refused to give credence to the EC’s press note that it can take cognisance of such complaints and refer such matters to the relevant investigating authorities on a case-to-case basis. “...Even though the ECI is supreme in its own sphere and has, indeed, issued guidelines/press notes based on its understanding of the statutory provisions, interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts and such guidelines/press notes do not bind us,” the court said.
It said that Karnataka HC erred in holding that a private complaint cannot be filed for an offence under Section 125A of RoP Act which is punishable up to six months of jail term. The HC had interpreted the provision solely upon reading the letter issued by the Election Commission of India on the issue which was rejected by the apex court.Allaying the apprehension that allowing the lodging of a criminal complaint by a private person would be misused and frivolous cases would be filed by political rivals, SC said, “If at all a complaint is lodged to harass an elected candidate or frivolous allegations are levelled therein, the laws of the country duly empower the competent magistrates to pass such order(s) as they deem fit and proper commensurate with the facts and circumstances of each case.
”