Former MLC’s Criminal Case Must Go To MPs/MLAs Special Court, Not JMFC: Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings and Remits Case

The petitioner challenged criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 77 of 2011, registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, 461, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The judgment records that the police filed a ‘B’ report, a protest petition followed, and the regular Magistrate took cognizance on 4 May 2023.

It further records that, in the intervening period, the petitioner was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

The petitioner’s sole submission was that cognizance should have been taken by the Special Court constituted for cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, rather than by the regular Magistrate.

The judgment’s account dates the complaint to 10 April 2021 but the ‘B’ report to 16 March 2020, an apparent chronological inconsistency.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to intervene to secure the ends of justice, including where proceedings disclose a jurisdictional error.

The Court relied on Government Order No. LA 10 LCE 2018 dated 8 February 2018, which established a Special Court for criminal cases against elected MPs and MLAs in Karnataka.

Following Dr. K. Sudhakar v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 18116 of 2024, decided 27 November 2024, and Dr. Y. Ramappa v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 1510 of 2024, decided 29 June 2026, the Court held that the designated Special Court is competent to take cognizance of and try such cases, irrespective of whether the alleged offence occurred before or after the accused became a legislator; the purpose is to secure expeditious disposal.

The petitioner was a sitting MLA when the petition was considered, and the challenged cognizance order had been made by a regular Magistrate.

Applying its precedents, the Court treated the Special Court’s jurisdiction as extending to cases involving legislators regardless of their status at the time of the alleged offence.

Because the regular Magistrate was not the competent court to take cognizance, the error was jurisdictional.

The Court therefore held that the cognizance order and ensuing proceedings could not stand, while clarifying that the complaint and investigation did not thereby disappear and that the Special Court could regulate the matter’s further procedure.

It remitted the matter to the Special Court for cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs triable by Magistrates in Karnataka, leaving that court to pass necessary orders and regulate the proceedings in accordance with law.