1. The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.935/12 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady, which was filed for the offence punishable u/s.177, 181, 171-I of the IPC. and also u/s.10A, 125A of the Representation of People Act,1951, preferred this petition to quash Annexure-A complaint by invoking inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. The above complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady and after examination of the defacto complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as per Anneuxre-D for offence u/s.125A of the Representation of People Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and u/s.171-I of IPC. The petitioner has been elected from No.17 Mananthavady (S.T. Reservation Constituency) as a candidate of Indian National Congress in the elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held in April-May 2011 and now she is a Minister in the Kerala Government Cabinet. Her nomination paper for contesting the aforesaid elections was approved by the Returning Officer, who is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mananthavady and no objection was raised with regard to the acceptance of the nomination. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent filed Annexure-A complaint on account of the political rivalry. Prima facie no offence was made out in Annexure-A, interestingly without considering that aspect, cognizance was taken by the lower court. If trial is proceeded, it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court.

2. The 2nd respondent's allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner filed nomination papers to the Kerala Legislative Assembly Election on 24.03.2011 before the Returning Officer, who is the R.D.O, Mananthavady. She had also submitted an affidavit along with the nomination paper as contemplated by the election laws, election rules and guidelines. In the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in form 26, as per rule 4A, in page No.9 column No.9, she had sworn her highest educational qualification as "B.A from Kannur University - 2004. She fully understood the contents of the affidavit and the educational qualification was entered with her full knowledge and belief. She is not a graduate and her educational qualification is Plus Two only. Thus, by giving false affidavit, the petitioner committed the alleged offence. After getting Annexure-A complaint, the learned Magistrate examined the 2nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant and took cognizance of the offence u/s.125A of the Representation of People Act and 171-I of IPC. But, he did not take cognizance of offence u/s.177 and 181 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no averment in Annexure-A that the petitioner had filed a false affidavit. Section 125A of the Act is attracted only for the violation of the Rule 33A of the above Act. Moreover, S.171-I will not attract, as the petitioner had already submitted the election accounts before the competent authority. The mistake in election account is not an offence attracting offence u/s.171-I of IPC. The petitioner is now residing at Thiruvananthapuram. There is violation of mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Moreover, there is inordinate delay in taking cognizance of the offence.

4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that furnishing of false information along with the nomination papers u/s.33(4) will attract the offence u/s.125A of the Act. Even though three limbs are operated at three different ways, the violation of rules in filing the affidavit along with the nomination paper u/s.33 (1) will attract offence u/s.125A of the Act.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, the relevant Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is to be extracted which reads as follows:

"125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.- A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be el