Magistrate Had No Jurisdiction To Entertain Criminal Cases Against MPs/MLAs: Madhya Pradesh HC Grants Relief To Ex-MLA Sumitra Devi In False Affidavit Case
While holding that the Judicial Magistrate First-Class at Burhanpur had no authority to entertain a criminal complaint filed against former Nepanagar MLA Sumitra Devi, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the trial court to forward the complaint under S.156(3) CrPC to the designated special judge of Indore District Court.The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi noted that since...
While holding that the Judicial Magistrate First-Class at Burhanpur had no authority to entertain a criminal complaint filed against former Nepanagar MLA Sumitra Devi, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the trial court to forward the complaint under S.156(3) CrPC to the designated special judge of Indore District Court.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi noted that since the offense was allegedly committed when she was the elected representative of Nepanagar, the said offense can be tried only by the competent court in Burhanpur District, and not the JMFC there.
“…The Notification dated 14.12.2021 very specifically portrays and speaks about the direction issued by the Supreme Court. It sets up the Special Courts to deal with the cases relating to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly… the Court of Burhanpur, which entertained the complaint, is having no jurisdiction as the said court was not designated to deal with the criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur further observed.
Justice Dwivedi was referring to the notification dated 14.12.2021 issued by the High Court after the apex court judgment in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr.
Alleging that incorrect information was given by submitting a false affidavit to the election commission, the complainant, Balchand Shinde, initially approached the Superintendent of Police and higher authorities. Later, due to inaction, a complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C before Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Burhanpur. The trial court then directed the police to register a case against the Ex-MLA and to commence the investigation.
While passing the above order for transfer, the court clarified that the former legislator can raise the objections regarding maintainability of the complaint itself and the discrepancies in taking cognizance before the competent special court itself. The High Court decided not to examine such issues once the trial court's incompetency in entertaining the complaint was decided in favour of the petitioner.
“…Since the question of competency and jurisdiction of the court is involved, therefore this Court finds it fit to decide the said question first for the reason that if it is held that the said court is having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the order based on the said complaint would automatica ly go…”, the single judge bench observed.
Before the High Court, counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant argued that whether the offence was cognizable or not is not in the domain of a Section 482 CrPC application preferred by the opposite party. The counsel, Advocate Ravindra Kumar Gupta, also contended that an earlier writ petition preferred by the complainant was disposed of by the High Court with direction to avail the remedy under Section 156 Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr. P.C, which the complainant duly followed by filing the complaint under S.156(3).
Senior Advocate Manish Datt, representing the former MLA, submitted that JMFC did not examine the steps that the complainant should have taken before approaching it under Section 156(3). According to him, the complainant should have approached the concerned police station under Section 154(1) of Cr. P.C.
If it was futile, the complainant could have applied under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C, he added. No cognizable offence was made out for the registration of F.I.R and submission of chargesheet, the counsel argued along with the primary contention of JMFC's incompetency to entertain the complaint.
After hearing the arguments raised, the petitioner's plea to quash the 2022 order of JMFC Burhanpur which took cognizance of the complaint filed, the Court directed the registration of F.I.R. and submission of chargesheet was partly allowed.
As an interim measure, the court had earlier stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 20/05/2022 passed by JMFC Burhanpur.
The petitioner, Sumitra Devi Kasdekar, was a Congress MLA for Nepanagar who assumed office in 2018. In August 2020, she left the Indian National Congress and joined BJP. She also emerged victorious in the by-elections afterward and held the post till 2023.
Senior counsel for the petitioner was assisted by Advocate Eshan Datt. Government Advocate Alok Agnihotri appeared for the state.
Case Title: Sumitra Devi Kasdekar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Khaknar & Anr.
Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 29487 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 52