ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.789 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, No. I, Madurai.

2. The gist of the case is that the respondent is the Returning Officer for 32 Madurai Parliamentary Constituency of Madurai District and also the District Collector of Madurai District. The respondent is designated by the Election Commission of India under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as competent authority to receive nominations from the candidates who are contesting for the 32 Madurai Parliamentary Constituency held on May 2009. The respondent is the competent person to initiate prosecution against the person as per the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., in order to deal with the cases where any complaint regarding furnishing of false information in affidavits, Form-26 and other documents, information furnished along with nomination as per the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1964 by any candidate either by himself or though his proposer. The contesting candidate who himself or through his proposer with intent to be elected in an election gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or conceals any information in his nomination paper delivered under sub-Section(1) of Section 33 shall not withstanding any other law punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. The respondent found that the petitioner was in possession of following property in survey No.94/33, patta No.353 to the extent of 0.11.50 (Manai), but he failed to furnish the details in his affidavit, dated 24.04.2009.

3. The above suppression committed by the petitioner came to the knowledge of the respondent only on 02.05.2013 when one S.Jeganathan of Thalathankudi, Saliperi Post, Nannilam Taluk had sent a complaint to the respondent regarding the above suppression in the declaration of the petitioner while he contested the 32 Madurai Parliamentary Constituency during the General Election in the year 2009. The Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to Government Public (Election) Department, Secretariat, Chennai addressed the District Collector, Thiruvarur to submit a report and a report was submitted on 26.07.2013.

4. The respondent came to know about the offence committed by the petitioner only on 29.10.2013, on which day the District Collector, Thiruvarur sent a report with particulars. Based on the report and other documents, a complaint came to be filed before the trial Court on 26.02.2014.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., is a bar. The offence under Section 177 of IPC and Section 125(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provide maximum punishment of two years and six months and fine respectively. This being the position, the complaint ought to be lodged before completion of three years from the date of occurrence or from the knowledge of the occurrence. According to the respondent, the occurrence came to his knowledge on 02.05.2013, but the present complaint was filed on 26.02.2014, which cannot be accepted for the reason that the affidavit published in public domain from 24.04.2009. Hence, the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation, which is hit by Sections 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 177 of IPC is pari-materia to Section 125(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Section 177 of IPC is a common law and Section 125(A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, is a special law.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioner is out of political vendetta and with mala-fide. The filing of declaration/affidavit admittedly was made on 2