BABU JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl. M.P. No. 11934/13 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakkudy. He has filed the above complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The revision petitioner, in the above complaint, alleges that he is a permanent resident of Ward No. 30 of Chalakkudy Municipality and a social worker. He is also the Secretary of Sanmariya Justice Forum. The respondent is the Chairman of Chalakkudy Municipality. It is the case of the revision petitioner that while the respondent was contesting Municipal Election in Chalakkudy 7th Ward, he had concealed the information regarding his assets and also the assets of his family members and the same is an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act. Hence he filed the above complaint with a prayer to take cognizance, conduct trial and punish the respondent in accordance with law.

(2.) The sworn statement of the revision petitioner was taken. To prove his case, he had filed copies of documents received by him under Right to Information Act. But, after considering the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., on a finding that the allegations in the compliant do not disclose the offence under 125A of the Representation of the People Act. The legality and propriety of this order are under challenge in this Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below that the allegation against the accused in the complaint does not disclose the offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act. The learned counsel fairly admitted that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act is not applicable to the instant case; but, he further contended that the allegation against the petitioner discloses the offence under Indian Penal Code, particularly, the offence under Sections 171G and 191 of the IPC. So, instead of taking cognizance under Sections 191 and 171G of the IPC, the learned Magistrate, after enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate went wrong by not taking cognizance under the relevant section in lieu of the offence alleged in the complaint.