Rajkumar Madki vs Shailendra Beldale
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1138
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3387 OF 2026
SRI. RAJKUMAR MADKI … APPELLANT
VS.
DR. SHAILENDRA BELDALE … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
th
1. Under assail in this appeal, by special leave granted on 20 July,
1 th
2026, is a judgment and order dated 7 March, 2025 of the High
2
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru . The High Court, inter alia ,
3
allowed a writ petition presented by the respondent and quashed
st
a complaint dated 21 August, 2023 lodged by the appellant
4
under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
nd
2. The complaint on the file of the 42 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Bengaluru, lodged by the appellant, gave rise to PCR
No. 9254 of 2023 in CC No. 29813 of 2023. It was alleged therein
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MANIK KUMAR
Date: 2026.10.16
17:23:16 IST
Reason:
1
impugned judgment
2
High Court
3
Writ Petition No. 7458 of 2024
4
Cr. PC
Page 1 of 9
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
5
125-A, Representation of People Act, 1951 by making a false
disclosure with regard to 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”. It was
also reasoned that a “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 supra , which is the duty of the Election
Commission, if it wants to do so”.
3. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Kamat, learned senior counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, learned senior counsel duly assisted
by Ms. Akhila Wali, learned counsel for the respondent, and
perused the materials on record.
4. A substantial question of law of general public importance,
hitherto undecided by this Court, does arise for our consideration.
It is:
Whether Section 125-A of the RoP Act should pass muster the rigours
of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC? In other words, whether any private
5
RoP Act
Page 2 of 9
person can file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. PC against a
returned candidate for an offence punishable under Section 125-A of
the RoP Act?
5. We propose to answer the said question on a holistic consideration
of the submissions advanced by the rival parties. However, having
regard to the facts giving rise to the offence alleged, we are of the
considered opinion that it would be futile to allow continuance of
the proceedings before the trial magistrate for him to pronounce
on the merits of the complaint. This is primarily because of the
nature of documents placed on record by the parties. The
allegation levelled by the appellant of false declaration as to
residence given by the respondent in his affidavit, prima facie , has
been more than effectively rebutted by him. Even at this stage,
we may safely say that the possibility of a conviction is remote.
Permitting the proceedings to continue for the trial magistrate to
decide one way or the other would only consume precious judicial
time. 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. To that extent,
we need to settle the law clear in the absence of any authoritative
judgment of this Court till now.
Page 3 of 9
6. The ordainment of Section 195 is that no court shall take
cognizance of any offences, inter alia , punishable under Sections
6
172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
7. Mr. Nuli contended that:
1. Section 33 A and Section 125 A were introduced in the RoP Act
th
by Act No.72 of 2002, w.e.f. 24 August, 2002, in light of the
decision of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. Association
7
for Democratic Reforms & Anr. wherein it was held that for
maintaining purity of elections and a healthy democracy, voters
are required to be educated and well informed about the
contesting candidates and such information would include the
candidate's assets, educational qualifications and criminal
antecedents (whether pending or disposed).
2. Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 prescribes that
the candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall at the
time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper
under Section 33(1) of the RoP Act, also deliver to him an
affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first
class or a Notary in Form 26.
3. Section 125-A of the RoP Act is a non-cognizable and bailable
offence. Section 177, IPC which provides punishment for
knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant, is
also a non-cognizable and bailable offence. The offence under
Section 125-A of the RoP Act is triggered when the candidate or
through his proposer submits his nomination and affidavit to the
Returning Officer (public servant). As per Section 195(1),
Cr. PC, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under Sections 172 to 188, IPC (both inclusive) except on the
complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some
other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
6
IPC
7
(2002) 5 SCC 294
Page 4 of 9
Hence, Section 125-A of the RoP Act should pass muster the
rigours of Section 195(1), Cr. PC.
4. Further, Section 125-A of the RoP Act should also pass muster
the rigours of Section 195(1), Cr. PC in order avoid filing of
frivolous complaints as has been done in the present case. The
other candidates may resort to initiation of criminal proceedings
against the returned candidates by getting private complaints
filed through private persons. If Section 195(1), Cr. PC is not
followed, filing of frivolous cases is likely to increase and the
purpose of incorporation of Section 125-A will be lost.
5. In the decision in Raghunath Deshpande v. State of
8
Karnataka , the complaint was filed by a private complainant
for offences punishable under Sections 171(g), 177, 181, 182,
199, 420, 465, 467 & 468, IPC. Solely upon reading the letter
th
dated 26 April, 2014 issued by the Election Commission of
9
India , the High Court had observed that a private person can
file a complaint under Section 125-A of the RoP Act. Since, the
provisions of the IPC were also invoked in the aforesaid case,
the High Court held that Section 195(1), Cr. PC will come into
play and no complaint can be filed by a private complainant. The
aforementioned decision is not applicable to the present case as
the private complaint is filed against the respondent for offence
punishable under Section 125-A of the RoP Act alone.
th
6. Subsequent Press Note dated 16 June, 2020 issued by the ECI
reveals decision having been arrived at to take cognizance of
complaints and refer such matters to the relevant investigating
authorities on a case-to-case basis. The ECI found that many
complaints were being filed with it and in order to address the
same, the aforementioned Press Note was issued. The relevant
8
2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9709
9
ECI
Page 5 of 9
th
extract of the Press Note dated 16 June, 2020 reproduced
below was relied upon:
" Commission has been receiving complaints regarding
furnishing of false information in the affidavits of some
candidates. As per the extant provision, individuals are filing
such complaints in the competent Court under section 125A
of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Now, Commission
has reviewed this position and decided that, in pursuit of a
level-playing field, it will take cognizance of complaints,
which indicate serious omission on the part of the candidate,
and refer such matters to the relevant investigating
authorities on a case-to-case basis ."
8. According to Mr. Nuli, the offence alleged by the appellant, if at all
has a semblance of merit, would be covered by Section 177, IPC
and, therefore, the High Court was absolutely right in holding that
it was only the public servant deputed by the ECI which could have
approached the court with a complaint under Section 200, Cr. PC
alleging offence punishable under Section 125-A of the RoP Act
and not a voter like the appellant.
9. Since we have expressed hereinabove that the complaint will not
be allowed to be pursued further, we refrain from noting the
submissions of Mr. Nuli on the merits of the complaint itself.
10. Section 125-A of the RoP Act reads as follows:
125-A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.— A candidate who
himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an
election,—
( i ) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of Section
33-A; or
( ii ) gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe
to be false; or
( iii ) conceals any information,
in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of Section
33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-
section (2) of Section 33-A, as the case may be, shall
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Page 6 of 9
(emphasis ours)
11. It is significant to note that sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC 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 is plain that the text of clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 195 does not include Section 125-A of the RoP Act.
Should we read into Section 195, Cr. PC 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
cognizance 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,
Cr. PC since Section 125-A of the RoP Act is of fairly recent origin.
Significantly, Section 125-A was inserted in the RoP Act with effect
th
from 24 August, 2002, while it is noticed that Section 195,
Cr. PC 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
Page 7 of 9
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”. This means that the rigour of Section
195, Cr. PC 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, whereby the
court is urged to penalise the offender for furnishing false
information in an affidavit to get elected. The High Court was,
therefore, clearly in error in returning the finding that it did.
12. Having so held on a plain construction of the statutory provisions,
we need not fall back on the clarifications provided by the ECI.
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.
Page 8 of 9
13. 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.
14. Having answered the question, we reiterate that the decision of
the High Court closing the proceedings before the trial magistrate
stands upheld for reasons different from the one assigned by it.
15. On the above terms, the appeal stands disposed of.
16. Parties shall bear their own costs.
…………………………….J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………………………….J.
(SHEEL NAGU)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 16, 2026.
Page 9 of 9