Rajkumar Madki v. Shailendra Beldale

1. Facts of the Case

The appellant, Sri. Rajkumar Madki, filed a private criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the respondent, Dr. Shailendra Beldale, who had been elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency in 2023. The appellant alleged that the respondent had furnished false information regarding his residential address in the affidavit submitted along with his election nomination papers, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The complaint was registered as PCR No. 9254 of 2023 before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The respondent subsequently approached the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the complaint by its judgment dated 7 March 2025, holding that a complaint concerning an offence under Section 125-A should satisfy the requirements of Section 195(1) CrPC and could be initiated only by the Election Commission or the concerned public servant. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether a private individual could independently initiate criminal proceedings against an elected candidate for furnishing false information in an election affidavit.

2. Issues Decided

Issue 1: Whether Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

Issue 2: Whether a private individual or voter can file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC against an elected candidate for an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, without a complaint from a public servant?

3. Arguments

A. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

The respondent contended that:

1. Sections 33-A and 125-A of the Representation of the People Act were introduced to ensure transparency in elections and provide voters with relevant information about candidates.

2. The affidavit submitted along with the nomination papers was delivered to the Returning Officer, who is a public servant.

3. The alleged furnishing of false information could also attract Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning the furnishing of false information to a public servant.

4. Section 195(1) CrPC restricts courts from taking cognizance of specified offences unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant or an administratively superior public servant.

5. Allowing private complaints could encourage politically motivated and frivolous criminal proceedings against elected representatives.

6. The Election Commission's Press Note dated 16 June 2020 indicated that complaints involving serious omissions should be examined and referred to appropriate investigating authorities on a case-by-case basis.

B. Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

The judgment records that the appellant's challenge concerned the High Court's interpretation of Sections 125-A and 195(1). The detailed submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant are not separately reproduced in the judgment.

4. Judgment Held

The Supreme Court held that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not have to satisfy the restrictions imposed by Section 195(1) CrPC.

The Court reasoned that:

1. Section 195(1) CrPC specifically identifies offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC for which a complaint by the concerned public servant is required.

2. Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act is not included in the provisions specified under Section 195(1) CrPC.

3. Parliament introduced Section 125-A in 2002 and subsequently amended Section 195 CrPC in 2006 without including Section 125-A within its restrictions.

4. The omission was considered deliberate, and the Court held that it could not read an additional restriction into Section 195.

5. No other statutory provision required that complaints under Section 125-A could be filed exclusively by a public servant.

6. The Election Commission's guidelines and press notes could not override the statutory interpretation undertaken by the courts.

Important qualification: Although the Supreme Court settled the legal question in favour of maintainability of private complaints, it did not revive the appellant's particular complaint. The Court found that the respondent had prima facie effectively rebutted the allegation through documentary material and that the possibility of conviction was remote.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the quashing of the proceedings, although for reasons different from those given by the High Court.

5. Legal Significance

This judgment is significant for electoral accountability, criminal procedure and the right of voters to seek legal remedies against alleged false disclosures by election candidates.

• Right to private complaint: A private individual or voter can initiate proceedings under Section 200 CrPC for an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act.

• Interpretation of Section 195 CrPC: The restrictions under Section 195 cannot be extended to offences that Parliament has not expressly included.

• Electoral transparency: The judgment reinforces the legal framework intended to ensure truthful disclosures by candidates contesting elections.

• Judicial interpretation: Election Commission guidelines and administrative press notes cannot override the interpretation of statutory provisions by constitutional courts.

• Protection against frivolous complaints: The Court clarified that magistrates retain the power to pass appropriate orders where complaints are found to be frivolous or intended to harass elected candidates.

• Separation of statutory remedies: The availability of an election petition does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of an independent criminal complaint under Section 125-A.

Key Legal Principle: A private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not barred by Section 195(1) CrPC merely because the alleged false information was furnished to a public servant.

Source: Sri. Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale, 2026 INSC 1138, judgment dated 16 October 2026, particularly paragraphs 4–14, pages 2–9.