A Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance under an incorrect legal provision does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings if the court otherwise possesses the jurisdiction to deal with the alleged offences, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that such an error is merely a procedural irregularity capable of being corrected and cannot, by itself, be treated as a jurisdictional defect.
“The settled legal position is that taking cognizance under the wrong statutory provision is a curable defect so long as the court is otherwise competent to take cognizance of the applicable offences,” the Bench held.
The ruling came while deciding an appeal arising from the 2015 Bhuj municipal elections. The appellant, who had been elected as a councillor, challenged proceedings initiated against her over allegations that she submitted an incomplete asset declaration by failing to disclose four agricultural properties owned by her husband.
A private complaint alleged offences under Sections 192, 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the Magistrate issued summons after taking cognizance only under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The appellant argued that the Representation of the People Act governs elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and has no application to municipal elections. On that basis, she sought quashing of the cognizance order.
The Supreme Court agreed that the Magistrate had invoked an incorrect statutory provision. Nevertheless, it declined to invalidate the proceedings solely on that ground.
Writing the judgment, Justice Karol noted that Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects proceedings from being set aside merely because of procedural errors unless such mistakes result in a failure of justice. The Court reiterated the established principle that criminal courts take cognizance of an offence and not of a specific statutory section.
The Bench observed that although the complaint referred to several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate restricted cognizance to the Representation of the People Act. While the appellant characterised this as a jurisdictional flaw, the Court accepted the State’s submission that the defect was curable under Section 465 CrPC.
According to the judgment, the error did not strike at the competence of the Magistrate to entertain the complaint. Instead, it amounted to an irregularity that could be rectified by taking cognizance under the appropriate legal provisions.
Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of the complaint in accordance with law. The Bench clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations and that its observations were confined to the legality of the cognizance order.
