Section 465 of CrPC

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026), held that a Magistrate's mistake in taking cognizance under a wrong statutory provision is a mere irregularity curable under Section 465 of CrPC (Section 511 of BNSS), so long as the Magistrate otherwise possesses jurisdiction to take cognizance under the correct provision. 

What was the Background of Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The Appellant had won the election of a councillor in the 2015 Bhuj Civic Body Election. 
• It was alleged that the Appellant failed to disclose four agricultural properties owned by her husband in the election affidavit filed under Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994. 
• A private complaint was filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 192, 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
• The Magistrate, however, took cognizance only under Section 125A of the RPA and issued summons to the Appellant. 
• The Appellant approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the cognizance order, but the High Court declined to interfere. 
• Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant contended that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance under the RP Act, since the Act governs disputes relating to elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and does not extend to municipal elections. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the error in invoking the RP Act: The Court agreed with the Appellant that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance under Section 125A of the RP Act, since the said Act does not extend to elections conducted for municipalities. 
• On the curability of the defect: The Court held that although the Magistrate invoked the wrong statutory provision, this did not render the entire proceedings void, since the Magistrate retained the power to take cognizance under the other provisions (IPC Sections 192, 193 and 196) that were also part of the complaint. 
• On the scope of Section 465 CrPC: The Court reiterated that cognizance is taken of an offence and not of a particular statutory provision, and that an error in citing the applicable penal section does not invalidate the proceedings unless it results in a failure of justice. 
• On the applicability of Section 465 CrPC to the present case: Noting that the private complainant had invoked the IPC provisions as well, the Court held that the Trial Judge's failure to take cognizance under those provisions was an irregularity saved by Section 465 CrPC, agreeing with the State's contention over the Appellant's plea that the error was a jurisdictional one going to the root of the matter. 
• On relief granted: The matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned for taking cognizance afresh and proceeding in accordance with law. 
• On the limited scope of the ruling: The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and that the discussion was confined to adjudicating the propriety of the cognizance order. 

What is Section 511 of BNSS? 

Section 511 of BNSS- Finding or Sentence When Reversible By Reason of Error, Omission or Irregularity 

(Corresponding to Section 465 of the erstwhile CrPC) 

• Section 511 BNSS bars an appellate, confirmation, or revisional court from reversing or altering a finding, sentence, or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction merely on account of an error, omission, or irregularity. 
• The error, omission, or irregularity covered under sub-section (1) may occur in: the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment, or other proceedings before or during trial; any inquiry or other proceeding under the Sanhita; or any sanction for prosecution. 
• Such reversal or alteration is barred unless the court is of the opinion that the error, omission, or irregularity has, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice. 
• Sub-section (2) lays down the test for determining "failure of justice" — the court must have regard to whether the objection to the error, omission, or irregularity could and should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. 
• The provision thus embodies the principle that procedural lapses which do not cause real prejudice to a party should not be permitted to defeat the substance of justice. 
• It applies both to irregularities in the general proceedings and to defects in sanction for prosecution, treating both under the same "failure of justice" standard.

Note: Section 511 BNSS is verbatim in substance to Section 465 CrPC, 1973, with no material change in language or scope — only renumbering under the new Sanhita.