The Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 22, 2025) dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the Leader of the Opposition Edappadi K. Palaniswami challenging a judicial magistrate’s 2023 direction to the police to inquire into the charge of him having provided wrong information about his wealth and education in his 2021 election affidavit.
Justice P. Velmurugan rejected the revision petition after finding that the Salem Central Crime Branch police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner in May 2023, since the Salem Judicial Magistrate-I had on April 26, 2023, ordered that the complaint should be inquired into and an FIR should be registered, if required.
The judge directed the petitioner to extend his cooperation to the police in the investigation of the matter and taking it to its logical conclusion.
It was P. Milany of Theni district who had lodged the complaint against the revision petitioner, a former Chief Minister and the incumbent general secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), accusing him of having suppressed true information with respect to his assets as well as education in the election affidavit.
Complainant’s locus standi
However, assailing the judicial magistrate’s order passed at the complainant’s instance, Mr. Palaniswami, in his revision petition, questioned the locus standi of the complainant, a resident of Theni district, to lodge a criminal complaint with respect to an election affidavit filed at Edappadi Assembly constituency in Salem district.
The petitioner’s counsel brought it to the notice of the High Court that the complainant was neither a rival candidate nor a voter from Edappadi constituency to be aggrieved by the election affidavit. He also contended that the allegation of suppression of facts regarding wealth and education was false and untenable.
Further, stating that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had listed some of its officials with whom complaints regarding false declarations in the election affidavits could be filed, the petitioner said, the complainant ought to have approached those officials and not the judicial magistrate, seeking a direction to the police to register a FIR.
Claiming that the Magistrate too had erred in taking cognisance of the private complaint, the petitioner said, Edappadi constituency fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, who could exercise powers only within Salem town limits.
‘Plaint should have been filed within a year’
“The order of the learned Magistrate is without application of mind and does not exhibit subjective satisfaction. Thus, the direction to the police to register an FIR, if required, warrants interference in exercise of powers of this honourable High Court,” the revision petition said, and sought to set aside the Magistrate’s order.
The petitioner also highlighted that any complaint regarding declaration of false information in an election affidavit must be filed within a year but the complaint in the present case had been lodged only on February 27, 2023, though the election affidavit was filed on March 15, 2021.
Despite such laches, the Magistrate had “erroneously” given the complainant the benefit of a general diktat issued by the Supreme Court to all courts across the country to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, while calculating the period of limitation, since several restrictions had been imposed then due to COVID-19, the petitioner argued.
However, the arguments did not cut ice with Justice Velmurugan who found no reason to entertain the revision petition.
