Special MP/MLA Courts Can Try Offences Committed Before Accused Became Legislator: Karnataka High Court

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the objective behind constituting such Special Courts is to ensure the expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving people's representatives.

“...the Special Courts, constituted pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court for trial of cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, are the Courts competent to take cognizance of and try such cases, irrespective of whether the offence is committed before or after the accused becomes a legislator, the object being expeditious disposal of such cases,” the Court observed.

The Court made the observations while allowing a petition filed by former Member of Legislative Council (MLC) B.M. Farooq, challenging criminal proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli in Tumakuru district.

The proceedings arose from a criminal case registered against Farooq for offences punishable under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 420 (cheating), 461 (dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

As recorded in the judgment, a complaint had been lodged against Farooq by V. Selvaraj, following which the police investigated the allegations and filed a 'B' report, seeking closure of the case.

The complainant subsequently filed a protest petition against the closure report. The Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences on May 4, 2023, and an order issuing process followed on May 29, 2024.

In the meantime, Farooq had been elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

Senior Advocate M. Aruna Shyam, appearing for Farooq, argued that the regular Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences since a Special Court had been constituted to deal with criminal cases against people's representatives.

He therefore sought to have the matter placed before the jurisdictional Special MP/MLA Court.

State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha, while opposing the petition on merits, acknowledged that earlier judgments of the High Court had held that cognizance in such cases ought to be taken by the Special Court rather than a regular Magistrate.

The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Dr. K. Sudhakar v. State of Karnataka, wherein it was held that criminal cases involving sitting or former legislators must be placed before the designated Special Court.

The Court noted that taking cognizance of such a case by a regular Magistrate constituted a jurisdictional error. However, such an error would not extinguish the complaint or investigation, and the matter would have to be placed before the competent Special Court.

The bench also relied on the coordinate bench decision in Dr. Y. Ramappa v. State of Karnataka, which recognised that the jurisdiction of Special MP/MLA Courts is not dependent on whether the accused held legislative office at the time of the alleged offence.

Applying these principles, the High Court held that the regular Magistrate's order taking cognizance could not be sustained.

“In light of these circumstances, the order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court requires to be obliterated, reserving liberty to the Special Court to pass necessary orders and regulate its procedure,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed Farooq's petition, quashed the proceedings pending before the regular Magistrate and remitted the matter to the designated Special Court for cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs triable by Magistrates in Karnataka.

Appearance: Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam a/w Advocate Suyog Herele E for Petitioner.

State Public Prosecutor B.N Jagadeesha FOR R-1.

Advocate Sathyanarayana Chalke for Advocate S Rajendra for R2.