The Supreme Court of India has held that private individuals can file criminal complaints against elected candidates under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging false information or concealment in election affidavits. The Court clarified that such complaints do not require compliance with the restrictions under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the judgment on October 16, 2026, while deciding a criminal appeal concerning a complaint over an elected Karnataka MLA’s residential address.
Background
The appeal arose from a complaint filed by Sri Rajkumar Madki against Dr. Shailendra Beldale, who was elected from the Bidar constituency in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections. The complaint alleged that the MLA had provided a false residential address in the affidavit submitted with his nomination papers.
The Karnataka High Court, in its March 7, 2025 judgment, quashed the complaint. It held that a complaint concerning an alleged offence under Section 125A should be initiated by the Election Commission rather than a private individual.
Madki challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether a private person could maintain such a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 195(1) CrPC restricted private complaints under Section 125A of the election law. Section 195 limits the court's power to take cognizance of certain offences unless a complaint is filed by the concerned public servant or an authorised superior official.
The Bench observed that Section 125A was not included among the offences specified under Section 195(1) CrPC. It also noted that Section 125A had been introduced in 2002, while Section 195 was subsequently amended in 2006.
The Court explained the significance of this omission, observing:
"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 Bench further clarified that the Election Commission's guidelines and press notes could not determine the interpretation of statutory provisions, which primarily remained a judicial function.
While settling the legal question, the Supreme Court distinguished its interpretation of the law from the outcome of the individual complaint. It found that the documents on record had prima facie effectively rebutted the allegation concerning the residential address and considered the possibility of conviction remote.
The Court 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 Bench added that magistrates have the authority to deal appropriately with frivolous complaints or proceedings intended to harass elected candidates.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision to quash the proceedings, although it rejected the High Court's reasoning on the maintainability of private complaints.
The appeal was disposed of, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.
