MR B M FAROOQ vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -

Reserved on : 28.08.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7484 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MR.B.M.FAROOQ @
BAVA MOHAMMED FAROOKH
S/O HAJEE B.M. AHMED BAVA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMER MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, (MLC)
RESIDING AT NO.19/1, MOYEN VILLA ROAD
LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH,
MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI PS
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001.

Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -

2. SRI V.SELVARAJ
S/O VEDAN,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
PROPRIETOR M/S. SUN MINERALS
CHIKKANAYAKANHALLI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I, FOR R-1;
SRI SATHYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04.05.2023 OF TAKING COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024
OF ISSUING PROCESS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CN HALLI, TUMKURU DISTRICT INCLUDING THE
FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.77/2011 REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 409, 420, 461, 468, 471, 120(B) R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURUSANT THERETO,
(PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1, 2 AND 3).

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

- 3 -

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
proceedings in Crime No.77 of 2011 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 420, 461, 468, 471 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’ for short).

2. Heard Sri. M. Aruna Shyam , learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha , learned
State Public Prosecutor-I appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner on
10-04-2021 for the aforesaid offences. The police, after
investigation, file a ‘B’ report on 16-03-2020. A protest petition is
filed against the ‘B’ report and the concerned Court takes
cognizance of the offences on 04-05-2023. An intervening
circumstance takes place in the interregnum: the petitioner gets
elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

- 4 -

Therefore, the subject petition is preferred, contending that the
regular Court has taken cognizance of the offences, whereas it
ought to have been taken by the Special Court. On this score, an
interim order is granted and the same is in subsistence to date.

4. The learned senior counsel, Sri. M. Aruna Shyam,
appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the
concerned Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offences, in the light of the creation of a Court to try offences
against people’s representatives. Therefore, he would restrict his
submission to the plea that the concerned Court did not have
jurisdiction and that the matter be remitted to the Special Court for
taking cognizance.

5. The learned State Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha,
though he would refute the submissions on merit, would admit that
this Court and the co-ordinate Bench have clearly held that the
Special Court should have taken cognizance and not the regular
Court.

- 5 -

6. In identical circumstances, this Court in the case of DR. K.
1
SUDHAKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA , has held as follows:
“.... .... ....

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On the
aforesaid fact, emerges the complaint. On the complaint, comes
an FIR registered against these petitioners. They are arrayed as
accused Nos.1 and 2. The police after investigation seek to file
their final report, before which Court, is required to be noticed.
The petitioner is an elected representative, insofar as
elected representatives are concerned, two Courts are
constituted pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court.
One, the Special Court for trial of cases filed against
sitting as well as former MP's and MLA’s, triable by
Magistrate in the State of Karnataka and the other
Special Court of the District Judge - the Court of Session.
Since, the petitioner was a people representative, the
police after investigation ought to have filed their final
report before the Special Court for trial of cases filed
against sitting as well as former MP's and MLA’s, triable
by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka and not the Court
of the Regular Magistrate. In terms of the Government
Order No.LA 10 LCE 2018, Bengaluru, dated 08.02.2018,
all the sitting as well as former MP’s and MLA’s, against
whom criminal cases are filed, will be triable only by the
Special Court constituted for the said purpose. The
Government Order reads as follows:

“¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ¯Á 10 J¯ï¹E 2018,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.02.2018

ªÉÄÃ°£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è gÁdåzÀ°è£À
(Elected MPs/
ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ ¸ÀA¸Àvï ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ/ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÁ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼À
MLAs
) ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀÄ M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀÄªÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À
PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ªÀåªÀj¸À®ÄMAzÀÄ «±ÉÃµÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.03.2018 jAzÀ
eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÁÜ¦¸À®Ä
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉ:-“

1

W.P.No.18116 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024.

- 6 -

10. The police filed their report before the learned
Magistrate and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the
offences by the following order:

"Perused the charge sheet and other materials
enclosed along with the charge sheet. There are
sufficient grounds made out to proceed against the
accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec
171B, 171C, 171E, 171F, 511 of IPC and Sec. 123 of RP
Act. Hence, cognizance for the above said offences
taken by invoking section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. Register
the criminal case against the accused no.1 and 2 in
Register No.III and Issue summons to Accused no.1 and
issue NBW against accused no.2."

Who has taken cognizance is discernable by an
order itself and it is an admitted fact that the said Court
does not have jurisdiction to deal with cases of people's
representatives. Therefore, the final report ought to have
been placed before the Special Court so constituted.
Since it is a jurisdictional error, it is on the face of it,
unsustainable. However, that does not mean that the
complaint or investigation would vanish. The final report
must be placed before the jurisdictional Court and the
jurisdictional Court to take the matter further by
regulating its procedure.”

7. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DR. Y.
2
RAMAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA , has held as follows:
“.... .... ...

7. Subsequently, the State Government in consultation
with the High Court has established a Special Court in
Bengaluru for trial of cases filed against MPs/MLAs in the State
of Karnataka. The object of establishing Special Courts to
hear criminal cases relating to MPs/MLAs is for early
disposal of criminal cases pending against them. It is

2

Criminal Petition No.1510 of 2024, decided on 29.06.2026.

- 7 -

under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
directed the High Courts to monitor the functioning of the
Special Courts. The High Court of Delhi in the case of
Manjinder Singh Sirsa (supra), after referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay(supra) in paragraph Nos.25 to
27, has observed as follows:-

"25. A reading of the above order will also reveal
that the objective behind constituting the Special
Courts to deal with cases filed against MPs/MLAs,
sitting or former, was with a view to ensure that
cases pending against them are tried
expeditiously.

iii. Conclusion

26. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a former
MLA and the argument that he had ceased to be
an MLA at the time of commission of alleged
offence cannot be a bar to his case being tried by
the Special Court, constituted to deal with the
criminal cases pending against MPs/MLAs. This
Court is also of the opinion that the learned
counsel for petitioner has failed to convince this
Court, as to how his case, being tried
expeditiously, can cause any prejudice to the
petitioner.

27. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that
there is no infirmity in the order of the learned ACMM,
and the holistic reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court points out that the Special Courts can try
offences pending against sitting or former MPs/MLAs,
and there is no specific bar for trial of a person who
had ceased to be an MP/MLA, when he had allegedly
committed an offence."

8. In the case of Shri Yengkhom Surchandra Singh
(supra), the High Court of Manipur in paragraph Nos.21
to 23, has observed as follows:-

"21. It may be noted that the Special Courts
established to try cases of former and sitting
legislatures as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

- 8 -

are offender-specific and the object behind
establishment of such Special Courts through out
the country is for expediting the cases against the
former and sitting legislatures. With due respect,
the view of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case
of Kolusu Partha Sarathy (supra) seems to be very
restrictive and the decision of Delhi High Court in
the case of Manjinder Singh Sirsa (supra) is in
tune with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra).

22. Considering the propositions of law as discussed
above, this Court is of the view that the Special Courts
(MPs/MLAs), Manipur will have jurisdiction to try cases
against former and sitting Legislatures (MPs/MLAs),
notwithstanding the fact that such offences were
committed prior to becoming a legislature; or as a
sitting legislature; or after demitting office as a
legislature. Accordingly, the points raised in Para 11
are answered in affirmative, meaning thereby that
the Special Courts have jurisdiction to try all cases
against the former and sitting legislatures
irrespective of their status at the time of
commission of such offences.

23. Let us apply the principles arrived at Para 21 to the
facts of the present case. Admittedly, the
petitioner/accused was a former MLA at the time of the
commission of the alleged offence. In terms of the
decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Manjinder
Singh Sirsa (supra) and the principles of law in this
regard as arrived by this Court in Para 21, it is evident
that the Special Court (MPs/MLAs) No. 2, Manipur is
competent to try the case being Cril. (C) Case No. 10 of
2022 filed by the respondent/complainant against the
petitioner/accused for the offence committed after he
ceased to be an MLA."

9. In the case of Kolusu Partha Sarathy (supra), the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken a restrictive definition of the
words, namely, 'elected members of Parliament' and 'members
of the Legislative Assembly' and it was held that Special Court
would have jurisdiction to try offences committed by former or
sitting legislature provided that on the day of offence, they were
sitting legislatures (MPs/MLAs). The very object and
intention of establishing Special Courts for trial of

- 9 -

criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs is to
expeditiously dispose of their cases and therefore,
whether the accused has committed the offence as a
sitting MLA or whether he has become an MLA after
committing the offence is of no consequence. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court
of Delhi and High Court of Manipur in the cases cited
supra, is justified. As on this day, respondent No.2 is a
sitting MLA and if the object of establishing Special
Courts for the trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs is
taken into consideration, I am of the opinion that the
prayer made by the petitioner for transfer of SC/ST (Spl)
Case No.3/2020 pending before the Court of II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, to the Court of
Special Court for MPs/MLAs cases at Bengaluru, is
justified ...”

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

The afore-quoted judgments hold that 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. 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.

- 10 -

8. For aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in Crime No.77 of 2011 pending before the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, C.N. Halli, Tumkur
District stand quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the hands of the Special Court
for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former
M.Ps and MLAs, triable by Magistrates in the State of
Karnataka, constituted in terms of the afore-quoted
Government order and the said jurisdictional Court to
regulate its procedure and pass necessary orders, in
accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

BKP