Supreme Court of India · Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Sri. Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale

Criminal Appeal No. 3387 of 2026 · Decided on 16 October 2026
Coram: Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, JJ. · Judgment by Dipankar Datta, J.

Facts

The respondent was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Bidar constituency in 2023. The appellant, a voter, lodged a private complaint dated 21 August 2023 under S. 200 CrPC before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (PCR No. 9254 of 2023 / CC No. 29813 of 2023), alleging an offence under S. 125-A of the RoP Act by reason of a false disclosure of residential address in the affidavit accompanying the nomination paper.

By judgment dated 7 March 2025 in W.P. No. 7458 of 2024, the High Court of Karnataka quashed the complaint, holding that S. 125-A must satisfy the rigours of S. 195(1) CrPC, that only the Election Commission could complain of the offence, and that a voter’s remedy was limited to an election petition. Special leave was granted on 20 July 2026.

Contentions of the Respondent

(i) Ss. 33-A and 125-A were introduced by Act 72 of 2002 following Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms; (ii) the affidavit in Form 26 (R. 4A, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961) is furnished to the Returning Officer, a public servant, so the conduct is in substance an offence under S. 177 IPC, attracting the bar in S. 195(1)(a) CrPC; (iii) applying S. 195 would prevent frivolous complaints by rival candidates through proxies; (iv) Raghunath Deshpande was distinguishable; and (v) the ECI Press Note of 16 June 2020 showed the Commission would itself take cognizance of such complaints and refer them for investigation.

Question for Determination

Held

1. Clause (a) of S. 195(1) CrPC bars cognizance only of offences under Ss. 172–188 IPC (and abetment, attempt or conspiracy to commit them) except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned or his administrative superior. Its text does not include S. 125-A of the RoP Act. [Para 11]
2. S. 125-A was inserted with effect from 24 August 2002; S. 195 CrPC was amended thereafter in April 2006. The legislature, presumed to be aware of S. 125-A, chose not to include it in S. 195. The omission is deliberate, and no court is barred from taking cognizance of an S. 125-A offence on a private complaint. [Para 11]
3. This reading is fortified by (a) the absence of any provision in any enactment confining complaints under S. 125-A to public servants, and (b) the non-obstante clause in S. 125-A, which makes the penalty operate notwithstanding anything in any other law. The High Court was clearly in error. [Para 11]
4. Having decided the question on a plain construction, the Court did not need to rely on ECI clarifications. Though the ECI is supreme in its own sphere, interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of courts, and its guidelines and press notes do not bind them. [Para 12]
5. The apprehension of frivolous or harassing complaints against elected candidates is no ground to import the S. 195 bar; the law adequately equips competent magistrates to pass appropriate orders on the facts of each case. [Para 13]
6. On the facts, the allegation of a false residential address had, prima facie, been more than effectively rebutted by the respondent’s documents and the possibility of conviction was remote. Continuing the proceedings would only consume judicial time. The quashing was therefore upheld, though for reasons different from those of the High Court. [Paras 5, 14]

Cases Referred

Statutes and Instruments Referred

Appearances

Impugned Decision

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, W.P. No. 7458 of 2024, judgment dated 7 March 2025.

Headnote prepared from the reportable judgment dated 16 October 2026. Paragraph references are to the judgment. Not part of the judgment; for reference only.