Taking Cognizance Under Wrong Statute is a Curable Irregularity Not Vitiating Proceedings Absent Failure of Justice

The appellant, a candidate in the 2015 Municipal elections in Gujarat, was accused by the complainant of failing to disclose several landed properties owned by her husband in her electoral affidavit.

The complainant filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Gandhidham, alleging a violation of Section 33(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

On November 8, 2017, the ACJM issued process against the appellant for an offence under Section 125A of the RPA.

The appellant moved the High Court of Gujarat to quash the criminal case, but the petition was rejected on August 22, 2025.

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's refusal and the ACJM's jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Representation of the People Act, 1951, applies to the election of a Municipal Councilor governed by State legislation.

2. Whether Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules requires the disclosure of properties solely owned by a spouse.

3. Whether taking cognizance under the wrong statutory provision (RPA instead of IPC) vitiates the criminal proceedings.

The Court clarified that "election" under Section 2(d) of the RPA 1951 refers specifically to Parliament or State Legislatures, and thus the RPA does not apply to local body elections.

The Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2005, specifically Rule 7A, mandates candidates to disclose assets of "myself, my spouse and dependents".

Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which stipulates that a finding or order by a competent court is not reversible due to an error or irregularity unless it causes a "failure of justice".

Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, holding that cognizance is taken of the offence, not the person, and pre-trial irregularities do not necessarily vitiate proceedings.

The Court first determined that the appellant’s interpretation of Rule 7A was grammatically flawed. It held that the "listing comma" after "myself" in the rule meant the disclosure requirement applied collectively to the candidate, spouse, and dependents; therefore, the husband's sole property should have been disclosed.

The Court admitted that the ACJM erred by taking cognizance under Section 125A of the RPA, as municipal elections are governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act (GMA), which currently lacks a specific penal provision for false affidavits after the 1990 omissions.

The Court reasoned that filing a false affidavit before a public servant constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Applying Section 465 CrPC, the Court found that taking cognizance under the wrong section was a curable defect and not a "failure of justice," as the act of filing a false affidavit remains an offence against society.

The Court further held that the erroneous mention of the RPA in the cognizance order is a curable irregularity.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order in part, remanded the matter to the Magistrate for taking cognizance afresh under the appropriate provisions of the IPC, and directed the case to proceed as per law.