Court finds disputed property reference bona fide and declines action under Section 340 CrPC / Section 227 BNSS
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected applications seeking action against an election petitioner for allegedly filing a false affidavit and placing incorrect material before the Court in an election dispute, holding that the record did not disclose any deliberate or intentional falsehood.
The applications were filed by the returned candidate, alleging that the election petitioner had wrongly attributed a property to the candidate and had also made incorrect assertions concerning the candidate’s caste. The applications sought prosecution under Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, corresponding to proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Alleged False Disclosure of Property
The objection centred on a document dated 29 April 2024 relating to a person named Deendayal son of Kishanlal. The election petition had referred to 12 properties, 11 of which were stated to be connected with the returned candidate. The disputed document concerned one property which, according to the returned candidate, belonged to a different person despite the same name and father’s name.
The Court noted that the document related to a person from Dausa district, as did the returned candidate, but found that the two were different persons. The petitioner had explained that the property was mentioned because of the similarity in the names and had subsequently clarified the position in the reply after learning of the issue.
No Deliberate Misstatement Found
After examining the pleadings, the document and the submissions, the Court found that the reference to the disputed property appeared to have been made bona fide because the name of the person in the document and the name of the returned candidate were the same. The Court found no circumstances showing that the property had been mentioned knowingly or with an intention to mislead the Court.
The Court also noted that the returned candidate’s counsel had accepted during arguments that, apart from the disputed property, the remaining 11 properties mentioned in the election petition were connected with the candidate.
Applications Seeking Prosecution Rejected
In view of these findings, the Court held that the requested relief could not be granted on the basis of the disputed property entry. Applications No. 07/2025 and 10/2025 were accordingly rejected as not maintainable.
Case Details
Case: S.B. Election Petition No. 1/2025
CNR: RJHC020011932025
URN: EP / 1U / 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. R.B. Mathur and Adv. Falak Mathur
