Private citizens can file criminal complaints over false election affidavits, Supreme Court rules】【。

The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), alleging that the respondent, a returned MLA, had made a false disclosure of his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination papers, thereby committing an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RoP Act).

The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint, holding that a complaint concerning Section 125-A could be made only by the Election Commission, having regard to Section 195(1) CrPC.

The Supreme Court considered the legality of that view but concluded that the complaint proceedings should remain closed because the allegation had been effectively rebutted and the possibility of conviction was remote.

1. Whether a private person may file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, or whether such a complaint is barred by Section 195(1) CrPC.

2. Whether the High Court’s order quashing the complaint should be disturbed, notwithstanding its conclusion on the applicability of Section 195(1) CrPC.

Section 195(1)(a) CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172–188 IPC, and specified related offences, unless a written complaint is made by the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom that person is administratively subordinate.

Section 125-A of the RoP Act criminalises specified failures to disclose, false disclosures, or concealment in a candidate’s nomination paper or affidavit, but is not included in the offences listed in Section 195(1) CrPC.

The Court held that Section 195’s restriction cannot be extended to Section 125-A where the legislature did not include it; the legislative omission was particularly significant because Section 125-A was inserted in 2002 and Section 195 was amended in 2006.

The Court also noted that Section 125-A prescribes its penalty “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law”.

Section 195(1) CrPC expressly identifies the offences for which a public-servant complaint is required; Section 125-A of the RoP Act is not among them.

The Court declined to read an additional restriction into Section 195, observing that the legislature had an opportunity to include Section 125-A when it later amended Section 195 but did not do so.

Accordingly, Section 195 does not prevent a private person from initiating a complaint under Section 200 CrPC for an alleged offence under Section 125-A.

However, on the facts, the respondent’s documents had prima facie rebutted the allegation, making conviction remote; continuation of the proceedings would therefore waste judicial time.

It nevertheless upheld the High Court’s decision to close the proceedings, but on the separate ground that the allegation had been effectively rebutted and the prospect of conviction was remote.

The appeal was disposed of, with the parties bearing their own costs.