Sending FIR To Wrong Court Is Mere Irregularity, Not Ground To Quash: State Tells Karnataka High Court In Case Against BJP's Pratap Simha

The Karnataka High Court was on Monday told that merely sending an FIR to a court lacking jurisdiction would amount to a procedural irregularity and would not, by itself, warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings against BJP leader and former MP Pratap Simha.

State Public Prosecutor made the submission while opposing Simha's challenge to two FIRs registered against him in connection with an alleged speech during a Ganesha Visarjan procession at T. Narasipura.

The submission came in the backdrop of Simha's contention that the FIR invoking Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with defamation, was sent to the Mysuru Sessions Court even though, being a former MP, the case could only be dealt with by a designated Special Court for MPs/MLAs.

Appearing for Simha, Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai submitted that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to delete Section 356 from the FIR.

“It's not a special court, I am a former Member of Parliament. After 2018, the Karnataka Government constituted special courts… As of today, 356 has been conveniently deleted so that FIR could be sustained,” he submitted.

Dalwai also relied on Section 222 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 199 CrPC, to submit that defamation can be taken cognizance of only upon a complaint by the aggrieved person.

“Once you invoke 356 BNS, the bar under 222 BNSS applies… If there is a legal bar, the entire registration of FIR becomes illegal,” he submitted, arguing that the complainant would have to pursue a private complaint.

The State opposed the submission, arguing that even if the FIR was sent to the wrong court, the error would not vitiate the proceedings.

“If we accept the argument that the FIR is sent to the wrong court, can it be quashed? The answer is no, milord,” the SPP submitted.

He argued that sending the FIR to the wrong court was at best an irregularity and not an illegality warranting quashing.

“Wrongly I have incorporated 356 in the FIR. Rightly I have sent a requisition. But does the wrong court vitiate the entire proceedings?” he submitted.

The Court then noted that the State was accepting that the FIR had been sent to a court lacking jurisdiction and that the Sessions Court had also passed an order without jurisdiction.

“Two things you admit: the FIR was sent to a court with no jurisdiction, and the order was passed by a Sessions Court also without jurisdiction. But you are saving this by Section 506 BNSS & Section 508 BNSS [provisions dealing with procedural irregularities that do not vitiate proceedings]…,” the Court observed.

The second FIR was registered on September 22 on a complaint by the President of a local association, alleging that Simha had ridiculed Dalit activists by referring to a “blue shawl” during his speech. It invokes Sections 352 and 356 BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Simha has also challenged a suo motu FIR registered on September 20, invoking Sections 132, 191, 194, 196 and 353 BNS.

The petitions challenge the legality of both FIRs and allege that they were registered due to political pressure. Simha maintains that his remarks during the September 18 Ganesha procession were directed at the alleged conduct of a police officer and were not against any religion or community.