Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VINAY SARAF, J.
Krishna Pati Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
Abhay Kumar Mishra - Respondent
Election Petition No. 8 of 2024
Decided On : 20-03-2026
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11(a) -- scope -- provision of R. 11(a) is independent -- provides special remedy to defendant -- Courts are empowered to summarily dismiss suit at threshold without proceeding to record evidence and conducting trial if it is satisfied that no cause of action is disclosed -- if allegations in petition prima facie show cause of action, Court cannot embark on enquiry whether allegations are true or not -- power to reject plaint is not merely procedural, but substantive and for preventing abuse of judicial process and ensuring that Court’s time is not wasted on vexatious claims failing to disclose any cause of action. (2003) 1 SCC 557, (2020) 7 SCC 366 and 2025 SCC Online 793 followed. [Paras 20 & 22
(2) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 33 and 33A -- disclosure of criminal antecedents and financial status -- is mandatory -- non-disclosure creates impediment in free exercise of electoral right -- concealment and suppression of this nature deprive voters to make an informed and advised choice -- election petitioner is required to assert about cases in which successful candidate is involved and how there has been non-disclosure in affidavit -- when that is established, it would amount to corrupt practice -- in case of corrupt practice, Election Tribunal or High Court is bound to declare the election of returned candidate null and void. (2002) 5 SCC 294, (2014) 14 SCC 189, (2015) 3 SCC 467 and (2024) 18 SCC 592 followed. [Para 27
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11(a) -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 33, 33A, 80, 80A, 81 and 100 -- Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 -- R. 94(A), Forms No. 25 and 26 -- rejection of election petition on ground of non-disclosure of cause of action -- election petitioner averred that criminal cases were registered against returned candidate/respondent in the past and they were not disclosed -- he filed list of criminal cases obtained under RTI -- pleadings prima facie disclose cause of action -- documents filed by respondent in his favour not relevant for deciding whether petition discloses cause of action or not -- second ground is that amount of loan availed from Bank is still due -- explanation of returned candidate that loan was not obtained by him but was obtained by firm in which he was a partner, may be good defence during trial but cannot be accepted at this stage as Bank has issued copy of loan account statement in which name of respondent is shown as borrower -- defence of respondent cannot be considered -- document filed along with application for rejection of petition cannot be made basis of rejection of petition -- prima facie, said allegation constitutes a triable issue -- third ground is that details of private limited companies from which respondent received salary were not furnished and respondent has already resigned from directorship of these companies -- the allegation prima facie discloses cause -- allegation of disqualification on ground of subsisting contract with PWD/Road Development Corporation is also required to be tested in trial -- petitioner has made specific averments regarding suppression of material information in affidavit filed along with nomination paper -- if contents of election petition are found to be true then not only the election petition may be accepted but the election of respondent may also be set aside -- petition is duly supported by affidavit as per Form No. 25 prescribed under R. 94(A) -- petition contains concise statements of material facts and requisite particulars in accordance with rules -- respondent is making prayer to consider his defence at this stage, which is not permissible -- not a fit case to exercise powers under O. 7 R. 11(a) to reject election petition -- entire bundle of facts constitute prima facie cause of action which, if established, would entail the relief claimed -- petition discloses cause of action and is not vexatious petition and is not liable to be rejected at this stage. (2002) 5 SCC 294, (2014) 14 SCC 189, (2015) 3 SCC 467 and (2024) 18 SCC 592 followed. (1954) 2 SCC 32, (1969) 3 SCC 622, (2012) 3 SCC 314, (2024) 18 SCC 817 and (2024) 15 SCC 112 distinguished. (1977) 4 SCC 467, (2020) 7 SCC 366, 2023 SCC Online SC 521, S.P. AIR 1994 SC 853, 2025 SCC Online SC 793, 2025 SCC Online Bom. 1171, (2009) 10 SCC 541 and Civil Appeal No. 13015 of 2024 decided on 14.8.2025 (SC), E. P. No. 16 of 2024 decided on 15.7.2024 (Indore), E. P. No. 6 of 2024 (Jabalpur), E. P. No. 7 of 2024 decided on 22.8.2024 (Jabalpur), (2023) 18 SCC 231, (2018) 14 SCC 1 and 2015 (2) JLJ 352 = (2015) 5 SCC 467 referred to. [Paras 29 to 33
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-7 fu- 11¼d½ & O;kfIr & fu- 11¼d½ dk mica/k Lora= gS & çfroknh ds fy, fo'ks"k mipkj micaf/kr djrk gS & ;fn U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gks tk, fd dksbZ okn gsrqd çdV ugha fd;k x;k gS rks og lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds fy, vkxs c ¼2½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 33 rFkk 33d & vkijkfèkd iwoZo`Ùkksa vkSj foÙkh; çkfLFkfr dk çdVhdj.k & vkKkid gS & vçdVhdj.k ls erkf/kdkj ds fuckZ/k ç;ksx esa ck/kk l`ftr gksrh gS & bl ç—fr ds fNiko ;k xksiu ls ernkrk voxr vkSj foosfpr p;u djus ls oafpr gks tkrs gS & fuokZpu vthZnkj ls visf{kr gS fd lQy vH;FkhZ ftu çdj.kksa esa varoZfyr gS muds ckjs esa rFkk bl ckjs esa çk[;ku djs fd 'kiFki= esa vçdVhdj.k dSls gqvk & ;g LFkkfir fd, tkus ij] og Hkz"V vkpj.k dh dksfV esa vk,xk & Hkz"V vkpj.k dh n'kk esa] fuokZpu vf/kdj.k vFkok mPp U;k;ky; fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dk fuokZpu v—r vkSj 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus ds fy, vkc) gSA ¼2002½5 ,llhlh 294] ¼2014½14 ,llhlh 189] ¼2015½3 ,llhlh 467 rFkk ¼2024½18 ,llhlh 592 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27 ¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11¼d½ & yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 33] 33d 80] 80d 81 rFkk 100& fuokZpuksa dk lapkyu fu;e] 1961 & fu- 94¼d½] ç:i Ø- 25 rFkk 26 & okn gsrqd ds vçdVhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij fuokZpu vthZ dh ukeatwjh fuokZpu vthZnkj us çk[;ku fd;k fd vrhr esa fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ@çR;FkhZ ds fo:) nkafMd çdj.k jftLVªh—r fd, x, Fks vkSj mUgsa çdV ugha fd;k x;k & mlus lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds v/khu vfHkçkIr nkafMd çdj.kksa dh lwph çLrqr dh & vfHkopuksa ls çFke–"V;k okn gsrqd çdV gksrk gS & çR;FkhZ }kjk Lo;a ds i{k esa çLrqr fd, x, nLrkost ;g fofuf'pr djus ds fy, lqlaxr ugha fd vthZ ls okn gsrqd çdV gksrk gS ;k ugha & f}rh; vk/kkj ;g gS fd cSad ls fy, x, _.k dh jde vHkh Hkh 'kks/; gS & fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dk Li"Vhdj.k fd _.k mlds }kjk vfHkçkIr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk vfirq ml QeZ }kjk vfHkçkIr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa og Hkkxhnkj Fkk] fopkj.k ds nkSjku vPNh çfrj{kk gks ldrk gS ijarq bl çØe ij Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd cSad us _.k [kkrs dh fooj.kh dh çfr tkjh dh gS ftlesa m/kkj ysus okys ds :i esa çR;FkhZ dk uke nf'kZr gS & çR;FkhZ dh çfrj{kk ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vthZ dh ukeatwjh ds fy, vkosnu ds lkFk çLrqr fd, x, nLrkost dks vthZ dh ukeatwjh dk vk/kkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrk & çFke–"Vîk] mä vfHkdFku ls fopkj.k ;ksX; fook|d xfBr gksrk gS & r`rh; vk/kkj ;g gS fd mu çkbosV fyfeVsM daifu;ksa dk C;kSjk ugha fn;k x;k ftuls çR;FkhZ osru çkIr dj jgk Fkk] rFkk çR;FkhZ bu daifu;ksa ds funs'kd in ls igys gh R;kxi= ns pqdk gS & bl vfHkdFku ls çFken`"V;k gsrqd çdV gksrk gS & yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx@lM+d fuekZ.k fuxe ds lkFk vfLrRo'khy lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fujgZrk ds vfHkdFku dk ijh{k.k Hkh fopkj.k esa fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & ukekadui= ds lkFk çLrqr 'kiFki= esa rkfRod tkudkjh fNik, tkus ds laca/k esa vthZnkj us fofufnZ"V çdFku fd, gSa & ;fn fuokZpu vthZ dh varoZLrq lR; ikbZ tkrh gS rks u dsoy fuokZpu vthZ Lohdkj dh tk ldsxh] cfYd çR;FkhZ dk fuokZpu Hkh vikLr fd;k tk ldsxk & vthZ fu- 94¼d½ ds v/khu fofgr ç:i Ø- 25 ds vuq:i 'kiFki= ls lE;d~:is.k lefFkZr gS & vthZ esa rkfRod rF;ksa ds laf{kIr dFku vkSj fu;ekuqlkj vko';d fof'kf"V;‚a varfoZ"V gSa & çR;FkhZ bl çØe ij mldh çfrj{kk ij fopkj djus dh çkFkZuk dj jgk gS] tks vuqKs; ugha & vk- 7 fu- 11¼d½ ds v/khu fuokZpu vthZ ukeatwj djus ds fy, 'kfä ç;qä djus ;ksX; ekeyk ugha & rF;ksa ds laiw.kZ ladqy ls çFke–"Vîk okn gsrqd xfBr gksrk gS tks ;fn LFkkfir gks x;k rks nkok—r vuqrks"k ifj.kr gksxk & vthZ ls okn gsrqd çdV gksrk gS vkSj ;g rax djus okyh vthZ ugha rFkk bl çØe ij ukeatwj fd, tkus ;ksX; ughaA ¼2002½5 ,llhlh 294] ¼2014½14 ,llhlh 189] ¼2015½3 ,llhlh 467 rFkk ¼2024½18 ,llhlh 592 vuqlfjrA ¼1954½2 ,llhlh 32] ¼1969½3 ,llhlh 622] ¼2012½3 ,llhlh 314] ¼2024½18 ,llhlh 817 rFkk ¼2024½15 ,llhlh 112 çHksfnrA ¼1977½4 ,llhlh 467] ¼2020½7 ,llhlh 366] 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 521] ,vkbvkj 1994 ,llh 853] 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 793] 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu cacbZ 1171] ¼2009½10 ,llhlh 541 rFkk flfoy vihy Ø- 13015 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 14-8-2025 ¼,llh½] fuokZpu vthZ Ø- 16 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 15-7-2024 ¼bankSj½] fuokZpu vthZ Ø-6 lu~ 2024 ¼tcyiqj½] fuokZpu vthZ Ø- 7 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 22-8- 2024 ¼tcyiqj½] ¼2023½18 ,llhlh 231] ¼2018½14 ,llhlh 1 rFkk 2015 ¼2½ ts,yts 352 % ¼2015½5 ,llhlh 467 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 29 ls 33
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election challenge regarding legislative assembly results. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. grounds for declaring election void (non-disclosure of antecedents). (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's defense against non-disclosure allegations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. procedural arguments on order 7 rule 11 application. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. petitioner's argument on voters' right to know candidate details. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. scope of judicial inquiry under order 7 rule 11. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. voter transparency and pleading material facts. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. triable issue existence precludes summary rejection of petition. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. dismissal of application for rejection of petition. (Para 34 , 35) |
Order :
VINAY SARAF, J.
1. This order will disposed of I.A. No. 22204/2024 dated 17.10.2024 filed on behalf of the respondent for rejection of petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. This election petition has been filed by the petitioner Krishna Pati Tripathi under Sections 80, 80-A, 81 and Section 100(1)(d)(i) & (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RP Act’) questioning the election of the respondent Abhay Kumar Mishra as member of M.P. Legislative Assembly from 69 Semariya Vidhan Sabha Constituency, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh.
3. On 21.10.2023, the gazette notification was issued for general election of the Legislative Assemblies of Madhya Pradesh- 2023 under Section 15(2) of the RP Act, by which the initial date for nomination was declared as 21.10.2023 and last date for submission of nomination was fixed as 30.10.2023. The Polling was scheduled for 17.11.2023 however date for counting and declaration was fixed as 03.12.2023.
4. The petitioner contested the said election as candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) from Semariya 69, District Rewa, wherein the respondent contested the election as candidate of Indian National Congress (INC) and both of them filed their nomination before the Returning Officer along with Form No. 26 as prescribed in Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1961’). The election was conducted on 17.11.2023 and result was declared by the election commission on 03.12.2023, wherein the respondent was declared as winning/returned candidate in the State Legislative Assemblies Elections from Semariya 69, District Rewa Constituency. The respondent secured 56024 votes, whereas the petitioner secured 55387 votes and the respondent defeated the petitioner with the margin of 637 votes. There was total 15 candidates, who contested the election from Semariya 69 Constituency.
5. After declaration of result on 16.01.2024, the instant election petition has been filed by the petitioner before Registrar Judicial-II of this Court questioning the election of the respondent and for declaring the election of the respondent to be void. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the election petition inter alia:-
(a) That the affidavit (Form 26) annexed with the nomination paper was not in consonance with the Rules, 1961 and in the affidavit the respondent did not disclose his criminal antecedents, whereas the same was mandatory as per the Rules. The respondent in paragraphs 5 and 6 has casually mentioned “Not applicable” despite the fact that in the past, several criminal cases were registered against the respondent. The petitioner annexed the list of criminal cases obtained under RTI Act along with the petition as Annexure P-6, which reflects that nine criminal cases were registered against the respondent in the past.
(b) The respondent in the affidavit (Form 26) filed along with nomination paper did not declare the outstanding liabilities due to financial institution/Banks and this important piece of information was deliberately suppressed by the respondent in his affidavit filed with the nomination form. As per petitioner, the respondent availed loan facility from the ICICI Bank
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
