Can a Voter File a Private Complaint for a False Election Affidavit? Supreme Court Says Section 195 CrPC Is No Bar

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (false information in a nomination affidavit) need not satisfy Section 195 CrPC, and the Karnataka High Court erred in holding that only the Election Commission could complain. But on the facts, finding a conviction remote, it left undisturbed the High Court’s quashing of the complaint against a Bidar MLA.

The respondent was elected MLA from Bidar in 2023. The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging that the respondent had given a false residential address in the affidavit filed with his nomination paper, an offence under Section 125-A of the RP Act.

On 7 March 2025 the Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint, holding that a Section 125-A complaint must satisfy Section 195(1) CrPC, so that only the Election Commission could complain, and that a voter’s remedy was an election petition. The complainant appealed.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does Section 195(1) CrPC, which requires a public servant’s complaint for certain offences, bar a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the RP Act?

Reading Section 195 as Written

Writing for the Bench, Justice Datta noted that Section 195(1)(a) CrPC covers offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC and does not list Section 125-A. Reading such a bar into the provision would mean adding words the legislature left out. Section 125-A was inserted in 2002 and Section 195 was amended in 2006; the legislature is presumed to have known of Section 125-A, so its omission is deliberate. The Court also noted that Section 125-A applies ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other law’.

The Election Commission’s press notes did not help the respondent: “interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts and such guidelines/press notes do not bind us.” Concerns about frivolous complaints are met by magistrates’ ordinary powers. Even so, the Court observed that the allegation of a false residential declaration appeared prima facie to have been effectively rebutted, that “the possibility of a conviction is remote”, and that continuing the trial would only consume precious judicial time.

What the Court Actually Held

• A private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the RP Act need not pass the rigours of Section 195 CrPC.
• The High Court was in error in holding otherwise.
• The High Court’s decision closing the proceedings was upheld for different reasons.
• The appeal was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It opens the door for voters to prosecute false nomination affidavits through private complaints.
• It confirms that Election Commission press notes do not bind courts on statutory interpretation.
• It shows the Court will still weigh whether a trial serves any purpose on the facts.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Complainants

• A Section 125-A complaint can be filed under Section 200 CrPC without an Election Commission complaint.
• Back the allegation with documents; weak cases can still be closed.

For Elected Candidates

• Section 195 CrPC is no longer a defence to such complaints.
• Challenge frivolous complaints on merits and through the magistrate’s powers.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, by a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A; Section 195 CrPC does not bar it.

Only on the legal question. The quashing of his complaint was upheld because the allegation appeared prima facie rebutted.

No. The Court held a criminal complaint under Section 125-A is independently maintainable.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →