Delhi Court sets aside criminal proceedings against Trinamool Congress Abhishek Banerjee under Section 125A of Representation of People Act

A Delhi Court has set aside the criminal proceedings against Abhishek Banerjee, Trinamool Congress leader and Member of Parliament, for allegedly giving false information on his educational qualification in the nomination papers for the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections. (Abhishek Banerjee vs State).The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar in a revision petition preferred by Banerjee against orders passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Rouse Avenue. .The ACMM had summoned Banerjee after a criminal complaint was made by one Sarthak Chaturvedi for the violation of Section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951..As per the complaint, while filing his nomination for the 2014 General Elections from Diamond Harbour constituency, Kolkata, West Bengal, Banerjee had given false information regarding his educational qualification..It was stated that Banerjee had shown himself as an MBA from IIPM in 2009 when IIPM was not even a recognized university and thus had no power to confer any degree..Banerjee challenged the order of cognizance and the summoning order by ACMM on the ground that not only was the complaint delayed under Section 468(2) CrPC but also Delhi courts had no territorial jurisdiction as the act of filing the allegedly false information was committed in Kolkata..Banerjee also explained that he never claimed that IIPM had awarded him a “degree” and he had simply stated a fact that he had done his MBA from IIPM..It was also contended that the complainant had no locus standi to file a complaint as he was neither a voter of Diamond Harbour Constituency nor was he a candidate..In view of the submissions of the parties, the court held that any “aggrieved person” could file a complaint under Section 125A RP Act as any person could set the criminal law in motion..The Court, however, found that the courts in Delhi lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. .The Court stated that the determining act was the act of filing the allegedly false affidavit in Kolkata and not its result of Banerjee becoming an MP in Delhi..The Court said,.“There is no connection or nexus in filing the affidavit in Kolkata and the revisionist (Banerjee) being elected and becoming an MP, with reference to the applicability of Section 179 CrPC. The act of filing an affidavit is a single act which was complete when the affidavit was filed and if the averments in the affidavit are false, it would attract Section 125A, the moment it is filed before the Returning Officer of the concerned Constituency.”.The Court also found that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed more than one year after the date of filing of the affidavit..With regards the merit of the complaint, the Court concluded that what Banerjee had stated in the affidavit was a “statement of fact”..“The revisionist is neither claiming that IIPM is a recognized University nor is he sating that MBA done by him is a degree.”, the court said. .The Court also refused to recognise the existence of a "continuing offence" as it held that the filing of nomination for the 2019 Lok Sabha Election was a distinct act and a separate cause of action. .The Court ultimately concluded that the complaint did not make out an offence under Section 125A RP Act and set aside the order of cognizance and summons against Banerjee. .Banerjee was represented by Advocates PK Dubey, Dinesh Priyani. State was represented by APP Manish Rawat. .Complainant was represented by Advocate Shoumendu Mukherjee. .Read the order: