JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. - In this writ revision, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27.10.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in 2 (C) C.C. No. 129 of 2008 taking cognizance under Sections 177, 181 and 182, IPC against him without applying its judicial mind and without explaining reasonable/sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the complaint petition. 2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows: The Complainant as the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer in respect of 45-Assembly Constituency, Cuttack filed a complaint petition against the present petitioner on 14.7.2008 alleging inter-alia that the petitioner on 7.4.2004 submitted his nomination paper along with an affidavit of the assets owned by him and his spouse before him. It is averred by the complainant that the petitioner was a contesting candidate for 45 Choudwar Assembly Constituency in the General Assembly Election, 2004. As per the guideline of the Supreme Court of India, he filed an affidavit disclosing the assets owned by him and his spouse along with the nomination paper. One Harihar Parida, and others filed an application before the Election Commission of India on the allegation that the affidavit filed by the petitioner was false as the petitioner suppressed some other properties situated in different places belonging to him and his spouse. As the petitioner furnished false information to the Returning Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer instructed the Collector to ascertain the truth on the allegation made by Harihar Parida and others. The Collector, in its turn instructed the Sub-Collector to enquire about the truth of allegations made. Accordingly: the Sub-Collector requested the Tahasildars of Cuttack, Tangi/Choudwar, Bhubaneswar and Puri to furnish report about the landed property and assets owned by the petitioner and his spouse. The Sub-Collector also requested the R.T.Os. Cuttack, Puri. Bhubaneswar, Dhenkanal and Ganjam to submit report about the vehicles owned by the petitioner and his spouse. After receiving reports from the aforesaid Officers, the Sub-Collector submitted its report to the Collector on 5.2.2008. Accordingly, the aforesaid complaint was filed on 14.7.2008. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner knowingly and deliberately had suppressed the properties owned by him, his spouse and his joint living family members and therefore, he is guilty of offence under Sections 177, 181 and 182, IPC for suppression of truth in filing such false affidavit. 3. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner knowingly and deliberately had suppressed the properties owned by him, his spouse and his joint living family members and therefore, he is guilty of offence under Sections 177, 181 and 182, IPC for suppression of truth in filing such false affidavit. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the above fact it is crystal clear that inquiry was made on the allegation of one Harihar Parida. However, the complaint petition does not reveal as to when such an application was filed by Harihar Parida and when inquiry was made and the complaint petition was filed four years after the election. The complainant also though repeatedly stated in the complaint petition that the petitioner did not disclose the property owned by him and his spouse, but in the complaint petition the facts narrated reveals that the allegation was with regard to the property belonging to the joint living family members. So, it is not possible on the part of the petitioner to ascertain the property belonging to the joint living family members, As such, the petitioner has not suppressed any facts while furnishing such affidavit, rather he has furnished the property belonging to him and his spouse even though the records were not corrected and his name was not reflected in the record of right. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Sub-Collector had received all the reports by 17.11.2007. As it appears from the complaint petition the alleged offence is under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Since the said provision is a special provision, the punishment prescribed under the aforesaid section is imprisonment for 6 months or with fine or with both. However, after receiving those reports he did not submit all those facts to the District Magistrate to file a complaint petition. As the complainant did not properly explain the delay caused in filing the complaint petition, the Court below should not have condoned the delay and in view of the fact that the alleged facts were within the knowledge of the complainant long since 15.9.2006, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007, Narasingha Mishra v. Sub-Collector-cum-Returning Officer, 110-Loisingha Assembly Constituency, Bolangir as well as decision of the Apex Court in *General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another, 2009 (10) SCC 184 and another decision in S.K.Bajaj and others v. D.K.Bhattacharya and others, 1982 Cri.L.J. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate however supporting the impugned order submitted that after the allegation was brought to the notice of the complainant, inquiry was made and after receiving report from different corners the complaint petition was filed and in view of Section 182, IPC the maximum sentence is three years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court below has rightly condoned the delay and entertained the complaint petition. 5. In the case of M/s. Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. V. Gild Pack Ltd. and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 739, the Apex Court held that objections raised by accused regarding propriety of order of Magistrate taking cognizance. Referring the decision in the case of Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998 (7) SCC 698 , the apex Court further held as follows: "This argument, however, does not appear to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in Sec. 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred from approaching the Court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Sec. 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Sec. 482 of the Code can be exercised." 6. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Sec. 482 of the Code can be exercised." 6. There is no doubt that a candidate has to file an affidavit disclosing the property belonging to him and his spouse. Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 being a special statute prevails over the general statute and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 6 months or with fine or with both. The plea of the complainant that after enquiring into the matter and on collection of materials the complaint petition was filed after four years is wholly unsatisfactory since the delay was not properly explained as to when he (complainant) received the allegation from Harihar Parida and when step was taken by him to enquire into the matter after receiving allegation. 7. Further, the complaint petition was also not filed within the statutory period prescribed. Further it also appears from the averment made in the complaint petition that petitioner had not disclosed in the affidavit the property belonging to his joint living family. members. In a joint living family, it is open to different members to acquire and possess property in their respective names which were their self acquired property. It is not necessary that all the joint family members should disclose regarding acquisition of the property acquired/owned by themselves utilizing their own acquisition or with their own extortion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is required to disclose all those facts regarding the property belonging to the members of the joint family, rather, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a candidate has to disclose the property owned by him and his spouse, which the petitioner has fulfilled. The copy of the record of right furnished by the complainant reveals that the petitioner has furnished all the property owned by him and his spouse and the allegation regarding record of right standing in the names of joint living family members and other brothers are not required to be furnished by a candidate as per the decision of the apex Court (supra). In view of that, the learned Court below should not have taken cognizance under Sections 177, 181 and 182, IPC against the petitioner by condoning the delay in filing the complaint petition at a belated stage in the interest of justice. 8. In view of the above the CRLREV is allowed and the order dated 27.10.2008 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 177, 181 and 182, IPC by learned SDJM (Sadar), Cuttack in 2 (C) CC Case No. 129 of 2008 is hereby quashed.