Error In Taking Cognizance Under Wrong Section A Curable Defect If No Failure Of Justice Caused: Supreme Court

"The well-settled position of law is that the error in taking cognizance under the wrong Section is, in fact a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken cognizance has the power to take cognizance of the other Sections also," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that an error in taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision is a curable defect under Section 465 CrPC, provided the court possesses the jurisdiction to act under the correct law.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that "cognizance is taken of the offence and not people," emphasizing that the primary objective of procedural law is to ensure that offences against society are investigated rather than being stifled by technicalities.

The appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, contested the 2015 Municipal elections in Gujarat. A private complaint was filed alleging that she failed to disclose immovable properties owned by her spouse in her election affidavit. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) issued summons under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA). The appellant unsuccessfully moved the Gujarat High Court to quash the proceedings, arguing that the RPA does not apply to municipal elections and that she was not legally bound to disclose her husband’s separate property.

The primary question before the court was whether the Representation of the People Act, 1951, applies to municipal elections governed by State law. The court was also called upon to determine if a candidate is required to disclose assets solely owned by a spouse under the Gujarat Municipalities Rules. Furthermore, the bench examined whether taking cognizance under the wrong section of law constitutes a jurisdictional error that vitiates the entire criminal proceeding.

Interpretation Of Disclosure Rules Regarding Spousal Property

The Court first addressed the appellant's contention that she was only required to disclose properties held jointly with her spouse. Examining Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, the bench noted that the disclosure form requires details of assets of "myself, my spouse and dependents." The Court rejected the narrow interpretation, stating that the punctuation used in the rules was a "listing comma" intended to separate distinct categories.

The bench observed that the word “of” in the sentence applies equally to the candidate, the spouse, and the dependents. Therefore, the sentence must be read collectively as referring to the assets of all three categories. The Court held that the appellant was indeed required to disclose properties owned by her spouse, regardless of whether they were held jointly or separately.

Court Explains The Scope And Meaning Of Cognizance

Delving into the concept of "cognizance," the Court referred to several precedents, including State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju and State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid. The bench reiterated that cognizance is not a formal action but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies their mind to the suspected commission of an offence. It is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings and is taken of "cases and not of persons."

The Court noted that while the word is not defined in the CrPC, it involves a judicial hearing of a matter and the intention of initiating judicial proceedings. The bench emphasized that the Magistrate takes notice of the facts constituting an offence, and any subsequent error in labeling the specific section does not necessarily invalidate the judicial application of mind.

Error In Statutory Section Categorized As Curable Under Section 465 CrPC

The appellant argued that taking cognizance under Section 125A of the RPA was a jurisdictional error because the RPA only applies to elections for Parliament and State Legislatures. While the Court agreed that the RPA was technically inapplicable to municipal elections, it held that such an error is saved by Section 465 CrPC. The bench noted that the State of Gujarat correctly argued that an irregularity in the cognizance order is a curable defect.

Referring to the three-judge bench decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, the Court observed that Section 465 CrPC is a broad residuary provision designed to prevent irregularities from delaying proceedings unless a "failure of justice" has been occasioned. The Court held that as long as the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance under other relevant sections, such as the Indian Penal Code, the mention of the wrong statute would not go to the root of the matter.

The Test Of Failure Of Justice And Prejudice To The Accused

The bench emphasized that the overarching purpose of the CrPC is to prevent delays and curb the menace of frivolous litigation. It held that the test for determining a failure of justice is whether the irregularity has caused actual prejudice to the accused. In this case, since the allegation involved filing a false affidavit—an offence against society—the technical error in the cognizance order did not warrant quashing the entire case at a nascent stage.

The Court noted that the accused often use delaying tactics to prolong proceedings. It held that the High Court was correct in its refusal to quash the complaint, as the trial had not yet commenced and the error was remediable. The bench stressed that procedural irregularities should not be used as a shield to escape investigation into substantive allegations of electoral fraud.

Final Directions And Remand To The Magistrate

While upholding the principle that the proceedings should continue, the Supreme Court found it necessary to correct the legal framework of the case. Since the ACJM had taken cognizance under a singular and incorrect section (Section 125A RPA), the Court decided to set aside that specific order for the limited purpose of procedural correction.

The matter was remanded to the concerned Magistrate to take cognizance afresh in accordance with the correct legal provisions, specifically the Indian Penal Code or the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations and that the Magistrate must proceed strictly as per law.

The Supreme Court concluded that a false affidavit in the electoral process is a serious matter that impacts the purity of elections. By remanding the matter, the Court balanced the need for procedural correctness with the substantive necessity of investigating alleged misconduct. The ruling reinforces that technical errors by judicial officers in citing statutory provisions will not automatically result in the termination of criminal proceedings if the underlying offence remains actionable.

Date of Decision: July 1, 2026