The Supreme Court has clarified that a private individual can file a criminal complaint against an elected candidate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging false information in an election affidavit. The Court held that Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which restricts court proceedings for certain offences unless a public servant files a written complaint, does not bar such private complaints under Section 125A.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the judgment on October 16, 2026. However, the Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision to quash the particular complaint against Dr. Shailendra Beldale, although it rejected the High Court's reasoning on the maintainability of private complaints.
Background
Sri Rajkumar Madki had filed a complaint before the Bengaluru magistrate, alleging that Dr. Shailendra Beldale, an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency, had made a false declaration regarding his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination papers.
The complaint invoked Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which provides penalties for candidates who knowingly provide false information, conceal information or fail to disclose specified details in their nomination papers or affidavits.
The Karnataka High Court, in its March 7, 2025, order, quashed the complaint. It reasoned that the restrictions under Section 195(1) CrPC applied and that the complaint should have been initiated by the Election Commission or an authorised public servant.
Madki challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 195(1) CrPC could be extended to cover offences under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act. It noted that Section 195 specifically identifies certain offences under the Indian Penal Code but does not include Section 125A.
The Bench observed that Parliament had inserted Section 125A in 2002 and subsequently amended Section 195 in 2006 without adding Section 125A to its restrictions. The Court considered this omission significant while interpreting the two provisions.
The judgment stated:
“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 further clarified that the Election Commission's guidelines and press notes could not determine the interpretation of statutory provisions, as that responsibility primarily rests with the judiciary. It also recognised that magistrates have the authority to deal with frivolous or harassing complaints in accordance with the law.
However, on the facts of the present case, the Bench found that the allegation concerning the candidate's residential address had been effectively rebutted by the documents on record. It considered the possibility of conviction remote and concluded that continuing the proceedings would unnecessarily consume judicial time.
The Supreme Court held that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act does not need to satisfy the restrictions imposed by Section 195(1) CrPC. It rejected the Karnataka High Court's legal reasoning but upheld the quashing of the complaint for different reasons.
The Court concluded:
“Having answered the question, we reiterate that the decision of the High Court closing the proceedings before the trial magistrate stands upheld for reasons different from the one assigned by it. On the above terms, the appeal stands disposed of.”
Case Title: Sri. Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3387 of 2026
