In a significant ruling settling a substantial question of law, the Supreme Court of India has held that a private individual can maintain a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) for an offence punishable under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RoP Act). A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled that such complaints do not have to satisfy the bar of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC, which restricts cognizance of certain offences except on a written complaint by a public servant. While reversing the legal interpretation adopted by the High Court of Karnataka, the apex court nonetheless upheld the quashing of criminal proceedings against a returned candidate on the factual ground that the allegations were effectively rebutted.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a private complaint lodged on August 21, 2023, by the appellant, Sri Rajkumar Madki, before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (PCR No. 9254 of 2023 in CC No. 29813 of 2023). The complaint alleged that the respondent, Dr. Shailendra Beldale, a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elected from the Bidar constituency in 2023, had committed an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act by making a false disclosure regarding his residential address in an affidavit accompanying his nomination paper.
Dr. Beldale approached the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru through Writ Petition No. 7458 of 2024. By an order dated March 7, 2025, the High Court quashed the complaint, observing that “Section 125A of the Act also should pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC” and consequently “the offence has to be complained of only by the Election Commission particularly, of the offence under Section 125A of the Act”. The High Court further 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”. Aggrieved by this decision, Sri Madki approached the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, wherein leave was granted on July 20, 2026.
Arguments Before the Court
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Counsel Ms. Meenakshi Arora, assisted by Senior Counsel Mr. Kamat, challenged the High Court’s view.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, assisted by Advocate Ms. Akhila Wali appearing for the respondent, argued that Section 33-A and Section 125-A were incorporated into the RoP Act by Act No. 72 of 2002 following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294, which mandated that voters be informed of candidate antecedents. He submitted that Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 requires candidates to deliver an affidavit in Form 26 to the Returning Officer under Section 33(1) of the RoP Act.
Mr. Nuli contended that Section 125-A of the RoP Act is a non-cognizable and bailable offence, as is Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which penalises knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant. Because the nomination paper and affidavit are delivered to a Returning Officer (a public servant), the offence, if any, is covered by Section 177 of the IPC. Consequently, he submitted that the statutory prohibition in Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC—which bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned—must also apply to Section 125-A of the RoP Act. He argued this was necessary to prevent frivolous private complaints against returned candidates.
Mr. Nuli referred to the decision in Raghunath Deshpande v. State of Karnataka (2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9709), distinguishing it on the ground that it involved offences under the IPC alongside the RoP Act, and drew attention to an Election Commission of India (ECI) Press Note dated June 16, 2020, where the Commission indicated it would take cognizance of serious omissions and refer them to investigating authorities on a case-to-case basis.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court framed the substantial question of law as: “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 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?”
Examining the text of Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr. PC, the Court observed that the provision explicitly bars courts from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC (and related abetment, attempt, or conspiracy) without a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned. The Bench noted that Section 125-A of the RoP Act is plainly absent from the text of Section 195(1).
Rejecting the argument to read Section 125-A into the prohibition, the Court pointed out that Section 125-A was inserted into the RoP Act on August 24, 2002, whereas Section 195 of the Cr. PC was subsequently amended in April 2006. The Court observed: “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, 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.”
The Court also highlighted that Section 125-A uses the non-obstante phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”, further confirming that Section 195 of the Cr. PC does not limit private complaints alleging the filing of false affidavits under the RoP Act. Addressing concerns over harassment and vexatious actions, the Bench noted that competent magistrates are duly equipped and empowered under the law to pass appropriate orders commensurate with the facts and circumstances of each case.
Regarding the ECI’s press notes and guidelines, the Court remarked: “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.”
Decision
Addressing the merits of the specific case, the Supreme Court held that the appellant’s allegation regarding a false declaration of residence had, prima facie, been effectively rebutted by the respondent. Observing that “the possibility of a conviction is remote” and that continuing the proceedings would merely consume judicial time, the Court upheld the High Court’s ultimate decision to quash the complaint before the trial magistrate, though for reasons entirely different from those given by the High Court.
Conclusively ruling on the legal question, the Bench stated: “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.”
The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Sri. Rajkumar Madki vs. Dr. Shailendra Beldale
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3387 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.))
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: October 16, 2026
