Voter Can File Private Complaint Over False Election Affidavit, Section 195 CrPC No Bar: Supreme Court

The appellant lodged a private complaint before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging that the respondent, elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Bidar in 2023, had falsely disclosed his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination paper, an offence under Section 125-A (paras 1-2). On 7 March 2025 the Karnataka High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition and quashed the complaint, holding that the offence must pass the rigours of Section 195(1) CrPC, could be complained of only by the Election Commission, and that a voter's remedy was an election petition (paras 1-2). The Supreme Court framed the question as one of general public importance it had not decided before (para 4).

On the facts, the respondent's documents had more than effectively rebutted the allegation and a conviction was remote, so the quashing would stand (para 5). On the law, Section 195(1)(a) bars cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on a public servant's written complaint, and its text does not include Section 125-A (para 11). Section 125-A took effect on 24 August 2002 and Section 195 was amended in April 2006; the legislature, presumed conscious of the new offence, did not add it, so the omission is deliberate (para 11). No enactment requires a Section 125-A complaint to come only from a public servant, and the penalty applies "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" (para 11). The High Court was "clearly in error" (para 11). Election Commission guidelines and press notes do not bind the Court, since interpreting statutes is primarily the task of the courts (para 12). Magistrates have the powers to deal with complaints lodged to harass elected candidates (para 13).