Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Another 2026

Wrong Statutory Section in Cognizance Order Is a Curable Defect: SC Clarifies on 1 July 2026

Citation: 2026 (SC) [Decided 1 July 2026]

Case No.: Criminal Appeal of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16030 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol (author) and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Introduction

What happens when a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint but cites the wrong statutory provision in the cognizance order?

Does the entire proceeding become void? Should the case be quashed?

The Supreme Court of India answered both questions clearly on 1 July 2026. In Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat, it held that taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision is a curable defect, not a fatal error. The proceedings do not become void merely because the Magistrate cited the wrong section, as long as the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the correct sections.

Background: The Election Affidavit Dispute

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda contested a councillor seat in the 2015 Bhuj Civic Body (Municipal) Election in Gujarat.

A complaint was filed against her alleging that she had suppressed information about properties owned by her spouse in her election nomination affidavit. The allegation was that she had filed a false declaration before a public authority by not disclosing her husband's assets, as required by the disclosure format under Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities rules.

A Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against her.

However, the Magistrate cited Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) as the basis for taking cognizance.

This created an immediate legal problem: Section 125A of the RP Act deals with filing false affidavits in connection with parliamentary and state legislative assembly elections. It does not apply to municipal council elections, which are governed by state municipal laws, in this case the Gujarat Municipalities Act.

Chandrikaben challenged the cognizance order before the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the Magistrate had taken cognizance under a provision that had no application to municipal elections. The High Court refused to interfere, holding that the error was curable.

She then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What Was the Real Legal Dispute?

The case raised two connected questions:

First, did the RP Act apply to the Bhuj Civic Body (Municipal) Election? If it did, then the Magistrate's cognizance under Section 125A RP Act was correct.

Second, even if the RP Act did not apply, was the error in the cognizance order a curable defect, or did it vitiate the entire proceeding?

The Court answered both questions.

On Whether the RP Act Applied to Municipal Elections

The Supreme Court held clearly that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not govern local municipal elections in India. The RP Act is specific to elections to Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies.

Municipal elections are governed by state-level municipal laws. In this case, the relevant law was the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The relevant provision for false declarations in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, which was Section 9, had been omitted in 1990. This meant that filing a false affidavit in a municipal election nomination did not attract the Gujarat Municipalities Act's penal provisions.

However, the act of filing a false statement before a public authority still attracted general provisions of the IPC (now BNS). The Court identified Sections 192, 193, and 196 of the IPC as the applicable penal provisions for filing a false affidavit:

• Section 192 IPC: Fabricating false evidence
• Section 193 IPC: Punishment for false evidence
• Section 196 IPC: Using evidence known to be false

These are offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of such IPC offences.

The Magistrate was thus wrong to invoke Section 125A RP Act. But the Magistrate did have the power to take cognizance of the underlying acts under the IPC. This is the crux of the curable-defect analysis.

The Curable Defect Doctrine: Section 465 CrPC

What Is Section 465 CrPC?

Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that no finding, sentence, or order shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation, or revision on account of any error, omission, or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment, or other proceedings before or during trial, unless such error, omission, or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

The provision codifies the principle that the criminal justice system must focus on substantial justice, not on technicalities that do not affect the outcome. An error that does not cause a failure of justice cannot be used to nullify valid proceedings.

What Is Its BNSS Equivalent?

Section 465 CrPC corresponds to Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The principle is identical under the new law: procedural irregularities that do not occasion a failure of justice are not fatal to criminal proceedings.

What the Supreme Court Held

The Court partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.

1. Taking Cognizance Is of an Offence, Not of a Statutory Section

The Court reiterated the foundational principle of cognizance law in India. Cognizance is taken of an offence. It is not taken of a particular statutory provision or section number.

This principle, drawn from the Constitution Bench decisions in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P.J. Raju, State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid, and the earlier judgment in Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah, means that when a Magistrate applies their mind to a complaint and decides that an offence appears to have been committed, the act of cognizance is complete regardless of whether the section cited in the order is correct.

The citation of the section number in the cognizance order is a reference to the statutory framework, not the substantive act of cognizance. If the section cited is wrong but the court has jurisdiction over the actual offence, the error is in the citation, not in the cognizance itself.

2. Error in Citing the Wrong Section Is a Curable Defect Under Section 465 CrPC

The Court expressly held: "The well-settled position of law is that the error in taking cognizance under the wrong Section is, in fact, a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken cognizance has the power to take cognizance of the other Sections also."

In this case, the Magistrate had cited Section 125A RP Act, which was the wrong provision. But the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance of Sections 192, 193, and 196 IPC for the same conduct. Since the Magistrate's court had jurisdiction over the IPC offences, and those offences arose from the same facts, the error in citing the RP Act provision did not occasion a failure of justice.

It was a curable defect, not a jurisdictional error.

3. No Opinion on Merits

The Court was careful to clarify that it had not expressed any opinion on whether Chandrikaben Dafda was actually guilty of the alleged offences. The question before the Court was only the validity of the cognizance order, not the outcome of the trial.

The Court drew a sharp boundary between the propriety of the cognizance order (a procedural question, answered here) and the merits of the allegations (a question to be decided at trial after full evidence is led).

4. Remand: Magistrate to Take Fresh Cognizance Under Correct Provisions

The Supreme Court set aside the original cognizance order (which had cited the RP Act) and remanded the matter to the concerned Magistrate.

The Magistrate was directed to take cognizance afresh under the correct applicable provisions, that is, the relevant IPC sections (Sections 192, 193, and 196), and then to proceed in accordance with law.

This is the appropriate remedy for a curable defect: not quashing the entire proceedings, but correcting the procedural error at its source and proceeding on the correct legal basis.

Explore our detailed analysis of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi to understand the facts, judgment, and important legal takeaways for Judiciary aspirants.

The Test for a Curable Defect: What Courts Must Ask

Drawing from this judgment and the earlier authorities, the test for whether an error in a cognizance order is a curable defect can be stated as follows:

1.    Jurisdiction test: Did the Magistrate have the power to take cognizance of the offence under the correct provisions?

2.    Failure of justice test: Did the error in citing the wrong provision cause any actual prejudice or failure of justice to the accused?

3.    Nature of error test: Is the error a technical mistake in citing the applicable section, or is it a substantive jurisdictional error that goes to the root of the Magistrate's power to try the case?

If the Magistrate had jurisdiction over the correct offence, the accused suffered no prejudice from the wrong citation, and the error is technical rather than substantive, the defect is curable. The remedy is not quashing but correction and remand.

Connected Principles: What Is Cognizance?

The concept of "taking cognizance" is fundamental to criminal procedure and is directly tested in judiciary exams.

Cognizance under Section 190 CrPC (now Section 210 BNSS) is the act by which a Magistrate applies their judicial mind to a complaint, police report, or other information and decides whether an offence appears to have been committed and whether further proceedings are warranted.

Key principles on cognizance:

• Cognizance is taken of an offence, not of an accused.
• Cognizance is taken of an offence, not of a section number.
• Cognizance must precede any process (summons or warrant) being issued to the accused.
• A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a non-cognizable offence without the Magistrate receiving a complaint or the appropriate authority granting permission.
• The stage of taking cognizance is distinct from the stage of framing charges. Framing charges happens after evidence is led or after committal. Cognizance is at the very start of the judicial process.

Old Sections to New BNSS/BSA/BNS Equivalents

For exam questions asked about events after 1 July 2024, use the BNSS and BNS sections. For questions about this specific 2026 judgment, note that the judgment discussed the IPC sections (since the offences were alleged to have been committed before 2024) but the procedural framework now operates under BNSS.

Why This Judgment Matters

It Prevents Abuse of Technical Errors to Escape Legitimate Prosecution

Without the curable-defect doctrine, an accused could potentially escape prosecution entirely simply because a Magistrate cited the wrong section number in the cognizance order. Chandrikaben's primary argument was essentially this. The Supreme Court refused to allow a technical error to be weaponised to nullify what may well be a legitimate complaint about filing a false election affidavit.

It Clarifies the Difference Between Curable and Non-Curable Defects

Not every error in criminal proceedings is curable. An error that goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction, such as a Magistrate taking cognizance of a matter exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, is not curable. But an error that is merely in the citation of the applicable section, where the court had jurisdiction over the actual offence, is curable. This judgment draws that distinction with precision.

It Gives a Practical Direction to Courts

By remanding the matter for fresh cognizance under the correct IPC sections (now BNS equivalents), the Court shows exactly how courts should handle this situation. Not quash. Not affirm the wrong order. Correct the error at its source and proceed.

It Settles a Recurring Question in Election Law and False Affidavit Cases

Election affidavits and false declarations to public authorities are recurring subjects of criminal complaints in India. The question of whether the RP Act, municipal laws, or general IPC provisions apply in any given election-related false declaration case has produced inconsistent decisions. By clarifying that the RP Act does not apply to municipal elections, and that the IPC offences are the correct framework, this judgment brings clarity to that specific area.

Conclusion

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat is a precise, practically important judgment that says criminal proceedings should not be voided by technical errors that caused no real prejudice. The law is not a trap to be sprung by the accused on technical grounds. It is a system for delivering justice, and Section 465 CrPC (Section 530 BNSS) ensures that minor errors in the administrative framework of a case do not derail the substantive pursuit of that justice.

FAQs

Q1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat (2026)?

 The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate's error in taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision (in this case, the RP Act instead of the IPC, for a municipal election false affidavit case) is a curable defect. It does not vitiate the proceedings. The Court set aside the wrong cognizance order and remanded the matter for fresh cognizance under the correct IPC provisions.

Q2. What is Section 465 CrPC and what is its BNSS equivalent?

Section 465 CrPC provides that no finding or order shall be reversed or altered on account of any error or irregularity unless it has occasioned a failure of justice. It is the foundational provision for the curable-defect doctrine in criminal procedure. Its equivalent under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is Section 530 BNSS, which carries forward the same principle.

Q3. What does it mean that cognizance is taken of an offence, not of a section?

The Supreme Court has consistently held, reiterated in this 2026 judgment, that when a Magistrate takes cognizance, they are applying their mind to whether an offence appears to have been committed, not to whether a particular statutory provision has been violated. The section number cited in the cognizance order is a reference, not the substance of the judicial act. If the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance of the actual offence, citing the wrong section number is a curable error.

Q4. Does the Representation of the People Act apply to municipal elections?

No. The Supreme Court confirmed in this judgment that the RP Act, 1951 applies only to elections to Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. Municipal elections are governed by state municipal laws. Filing a false affidavit in a municipal election nomination does not attract Section 125A RP Act. The applicable penal provisions are the IPC offences of fabricating false evidence (Section 192 IPC/Section 242 BNS) and perjury (Section 193 IPC/Section 243 BNS).

Q5. When is an error in a cognizance order NOT curable?

 An error is not curable when it goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked any power to try the offence in question. For example, if a Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions Court (such as murder), that is a jurisdictional error, not a curable defect. The distinction is: an error in citing the correct section (where jurisdiction over the actual offence exists) is curable; an error that means the court had no jurisdiction at all is not.