The Supreme Court of India has ruled that taking cognizance of an offence under an incorrect statutory provision is a curable defect that does not inherently vitiate criminal proceedings. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered this ruling while considering an appeal by a municipal councillor candidate accused of suppressing information about her spouse’s properties in her election affidavit. While acknowledging that the Magistrate erroneously took cognizance under the Representation of the People Act, 1951—which does not apply to municipal elections—the Court determined that this error did not cause a failure of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the incorrect cognizance order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to take cognizance afresh under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose during the 2015 Municipal elections in Gujarat, where the appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, contested as a candidate for the position of Councillor. On February 17, 2016, a complainant, Velji Namori Maheshwari, submitted a complaint to the Deputy District Development Officer, Establishment Branch, District Panchayat Office, Bhuj-Kutch. The complainant alleged that the appellant had failed to disclose multiple landed properties owned by her spouse in her electoral filing, in breach of election rules and public trust.
Although initial administrative steps were taken, the investigation did not progress. This prompted the complainant to submit another representation on May 16, 2017, before filing a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham. On November 8, 2017, the Magistrate found a prima facie case and issued summons to the appellant under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) for suppressing candidate particulars.
The appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat to quash the proceedings. However, a Single Judge of the High Court rejected her petition on August 22, 2025, observing that the complaint was at a nascent stage and that her defense—having entered into uncompleted agreements to sell the properties—did not transfer ownership title. Challenging this refusal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel contended that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has no application to the election of a municipal councillor, which is exclusively governed by state legislation. It was further argued that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). On the disclosure of assets, the appellant argued that Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules, 2005, only requires the candidate to disclose properties owned by themselves or jointly with their spouse, and does not mandate the disclosure of properties owned solely by the spouse.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that mentioning Section 125A of the RPA in the cognizance order was a curable defect and not a jurisdictional error. They maintained that filing a false affidavit before a public authority constitutes offences under Sections 192, 193, and 196 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Since these offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, the limitation bar under Section 468 of the CrPC would not apply. The complainant also cited a June 28, 2011 directive from the State Election Commission instructing Returning Officers to file criminal complaints or FIRs under appropriate laws when candidates submit misleading or false affidavits.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court first addressed whether candidates are legally required to disclose properties solely owned by their spouses. Interpreting the disclosure format under Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities rules, which requires details of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents,” the Court rejected the appellant’s restrictive interpretation. Highlighting the grammatical function of the comma in the rule, the Court observed:
“the sentence is to be read collectively as referring to the assets of all three categories. The ‘comma’ does not create any separate meaning, distinction, or exclusion; it serves only a grammatical and structural function to identify the first item in the series.”
Thus, the Court held that the appellant was obligated to disclose her spouse’s independent properties.
The Court then turned to the issue of taking cognizance under the wrong statutory provision. It noted that the RPA indeed does not govern local municipality elections. Furthermore, under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, provisions penalizing false declarations (such as Section 9) had been omitted in 1990, meaning that the governing penal provisions for filing a false affidavit lie under the IPC.
The Court reviewed the legal concept of “cognizance,” citing its previous decisions in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid, and Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State Of U.P. And Anr.. It reiterated the established principle from Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah that taking cognizance under an incorrect section is a curable defect, provided the court possesses the underlying power to take cognizance of the offence under the correct sections.
Relying on the three-judge bench decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka (which referenced Santosh De v. Archna Guha), the Court observed that the primary purpose of Chapter XXXV of the CrPC (specifically Section 465) is to prevent minor technical irregularities from delaying judicial proceedings at the pre-trial stage. An irregular cognizance order is protected under Section 465 unless the accused demonstrates that the irregularity has caused a “failure of justice” or direct prejudice.
The Court stressed that the act of filing a false affidavit in an election is a grave matter that concerns public interest and cannot be brushed aside on technical errors. The Bench observed:
“taking of cognizance itself, even if it was taken under a singular section and that too was erroneous, for it is a well settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not people. If the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral process, that is an offence against society at large and has to be investigated.”
The Decision
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the original cognizance order and remanding the matter back to the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate is directed to take cognizance afresh under the appropriate legal provisions (such as the IPC) and proceed in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the final merits of the allegations against the appellant.
Case Title: Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16030 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: July 1, 2026
