N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY versus KAVITHA MAHESH

N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY versus KAVITHA MAHESH

The Court held that inconsistent or imprecise statements by the Returning Officer in his deposition did not, without a definite finding of deliberate or intentional falsehood and without the court forming an opinion that prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice, justify directing the Registrar General...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant (c.a. No. 4821/2012): N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY; Respondent: KAVITHA MAHESH; Appellant (c.a. No. 6171/2012) / Then Returning Officer: ASHOK MENSINKAI
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Civil Appeal No.4821/2012 disposed of as infructuous; Civil Appeal No.6171/2012 allowed in part by setting aside direction to prosecute under Section 193 IPC
Legal Topics
Representation of People Act, 1951 S.100(1)(c) Improper Rejection of Nomination Paper, Perjury / False Evidence (section 193 Ipc), Duties of Returning Officer, Section 340 Cr PC Notice for Prosecution of Witness
Election Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Representation of People Act, 1951 S.100(1)(c) Improper Rejection of Nomination Paper Perjury / False Evidence (section 193 Ipc) Duties of Returning Officer Section 340 Cr PC Notice for Prosecution of Witness

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY

Appellant (c.a. No. 4821/2012)

KAVITHA MAHESH

Respondent

ASHOK MENSINKAI

Appellant (c.a. No. 6171/2012) / Then Returning Officer

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inconsistent statements by a witness/Returning Officer before the election tribunal justify initiating prosecution for false evidence/perjury under Section 193 IPC
  2. 2 Whether the learned Judge rightly directed the Registrar General to register a criminal complaint without a finding of deliberate or intentional falsehood and without forming an opinion that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that inconsistent or imprecise statements by the Returning Officer in his deposition did not, without a definite finding of deliberate or intentional falsehood and without the court forming an opinion that prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice, justify directing the Registrar General to register a criminal complaint under Section 193 IPC; accordingly the direction to initiate prosecution was set aside and the appeal challenging that direction was allowed; the separate appeal declaring the election void was disposed of as infructuous as the term had been completed.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No.4821/2012 disposed of as infructuous; Civil Appeal No.6171/2012 allowed in part by setting aside direction to prosecute under Section 193 IPC

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No.4821/2012 is disposed of as infructuous.
  • Civil Appeal No.6171/2012 is allowed and the direction contained in para 175 of the impugned order to the Registrar General of the High Court to register the complaint against the appellant (then Returning Officer) for proceedings under Section 193 IPC is set aside.