The Supreme Court has ruled that even voters can file a private criminal complaint against an elected candidate for providing false information or concealing material facts in election affidavits under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The apex court ruled that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which restricts courts from taking cognisance of certain offences without a written complaint by the competent authority or a public servant, would not apply in the case of Section 125A.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the judgment while partly reversing a Karnataka High Court ruling which held that a voter can only file an election petition against an elected candidate, not a private criminal complaint.
The high court had passed the order while directing the quashing of a private complaint filed by voter Rajkumar Madki on an appeal by Shailendra Beldale, an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency.
Madki had alleged that Beldale furnished a false declaration regarding his residential address in an affidavit accompanying his nomination papers for the 2023 Assembly elections.
He had lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate in Bengaluru, alleging an offence punishable under Section 125A of the RoP Act, which entails a punishment up to six months.
“Significantly, Section 125-A was inserted in the RoP Act with effect from August 24, 2002, while it is noticed that Section 195, CrPC, suffered an amendment thereafter in April 2006. The legislature is presumed to be conscious of its insertion of Section 125-A in the RoP Act four years back. It stands to reason that omission of the legislature to include Section 125-A of the RoP Act in Section 195, CrPC is deliberate and no court, in terms of the latter provision, 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,” the top court said.
“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…,” it added.
The apex court said the high court was wrong in its reasoning that a private complaint alleging an offence committed under Section 125A of the RoP Act needed to pass muster of the rigours of Section 195 of the CrPC.
The high court had also reasoned that the “right given to the voter is only to file an election petition, and not to register a private complaint of crime, of the kind considered, which is the duty of the Election Commission, if it wants to do so”.
The top court said if a complaint is lodged to harass an elected candidate or frivolous allegations are levelled, the laws of the country duly equip and empower the competent magistrates to pass such orders as they deem fit and proper commensurate with the facts and circumstances of each case.
The verdict further held that the absence of any other statutory provision restricting the filing of such complaints to public servants, coupled with the language of Section 125A of the RoP Act, supported the conclusion that a private complaint was legally maintainable.
However, the apex court refused to interfere with the high court’s decision to quash the criminal complaint against Beldale.