ORDER

% 18.01.2023

1. This petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the communication dated 26.09.2022, whereby the petitioner No. 2 has been intimated by the Election Commission of India that his complaint with a pre-dated order was rejected.

2. The facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that on

09.10.2021, the Income Tax Department made a press release and stated to have seized Rs. 142 crores of illegal cash from the premises of Respondent No.2 and about Rs. 550 crores of unaccounted income from Respondent No.2 (Annexure P-5). On 25.05.2022, Respondent No.2 filed Nomination papers for Rajya Sabha (Annexure P-6). On 26.07.2022 the petitioners filed a complaint against Respondent No.2 for non-disclosure of the fact that on

29.12.2021, an FIR No. 176/2021 (Annexure P-3) was registered against Respondent No.2 at Police Station Pochampally under Sections 420/468/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 14056/2022 before this Court for non-disclosure of criminal cases in the nomination papers. The petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.09.2022, with a direction to Respondent No.1 to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner dated 26.07.2022 as per their own discretion. Accordingly, the same was disposed of on 26.09.2022 by the Election Commission of India/Respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that notwithstanding the remedy available under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter “RP Act, 1951”) this court can still direct for taking action against the private respondent(s) for non-

disclosure of the pendency of the FIR against him. He further states that Respondent No.1 has failed to perform their constitutional obligation in not implementing their own guidelines dated 11.01.2022.

4. The impugned communication dated 26.09.2022 reads as under :- “I am directed to refer to your letter dated 26.07.2022 on the subject cited, and to invite your attention to Section 125A of The Representation of People Act, 1951 read with the Commission's instructions contained in letters No. 4/2014/SDR-Vol-1, dated 26.04.2014 and No. 4/2021/SDR/Vol.lI, dated 24.08.2021 (copies enclosed) in matters relating to furnishing false declaration in the affidavit filed along with nomination paper by any candidate. In view of the provisions contained in the above mentioned letters, as no supportive documents have been provided with your complaint, you may move to the appropriate Court of Law for action under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, directly.”

5. This court is not persuaded with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners in view of provisions under Section 125A of the RP Act, 1951, which has been reproduced as under :-

“125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.—A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,— (i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of section 33A; or (ii) give false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or (iii) conceals any information, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33A, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

6. In view of the above, no directions are required to be issued in this respect. In all cases, writ court is not expected to issue directions for registration of FIR. The Petitioners are free to take necessary steps, in accordance with law. In view thereof, the instant petition does not have any