Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court

"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, " Karnataka High Court

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has held that regular Magistrate courts lack jurisdiction to entertain final reports and take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against sitting or former legislators, ruling that such authority rests exclusively with designated Special MP/MLA Courts. Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered this ruling on November 4, 2026, holding that taking cognizance by a regular court against an elected lawmaker constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect.

A complaint was registered in Crime No. 77 of 2011 against petitioner B.M. Farooq for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 461, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Following investigation, the police filed a 'B' summary report in March 2020, against which the complainant filed a protest petition, leading the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, CN Halli, to take cognizance of the offences on May 4, 2023. In the interregnum, the petitioner was elected as a people's representative, prompting him to invoke Section 482 CrPC before the High Court challenging the magistrate's jurisdictional competence.

Whether a regular Magistrate possesses jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences against an individual who has become an elected lawmaker, or whether the final report must be placed exclusively before the designated Special Court for MPs and MLAs?

Examining the jurisdictional framework, the High Court observed that pursuant to directives issued by the Supreme Court, dedicated Special Courts have been constituted in Karnataka to handle criminal prosecutions against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The court reiterated that once an accused attains the status of an elected representative, regular magistrate courts are divested of competence to deal with the proceedings.

Magistrate lacks competence to entertain final reports against elected representatives

Referring to the earlier decision in Dr. K. Sudhakar v. State of Karnataka, the court emphasized that the police must place their final report solely before the Special Court constituted under Government Order No. LA 10 LCE 2018. The bench underscored that the error of a regular magistrate taking cognizance is fatal to the continuation of proceedings before such court.

The High Court quoted with approval the observations from Dr. K. Sudhakar, observing that when a court without jurisdiction takes cognizance, it is on the face of it unsustainable, though it does not mean that the complaint or the investigation itself would vanish into thin air.

Special Courts for MPs and MLAs are offender-specific courts designed for speedy disposal

The bench further relied on the coordinate bench decision in Dr. Y. Ramappa v. State of Karnataka, which endorsed decisions from the Delhi and Manipur High Courts holding that Special Courts for legislators are offender-specific. The court reiterated that the objective behind these designated courts is the expeditious disposal of cases involving public representatives.

Addressing the temporal aspect of the alleged offences, the court held that whether an accused committed the offence prior to assuming office, while serving as a sitting legislator, or after demitting office is wholly immaterial to determining the forum.

Status as lawmaker at the time of cognizance mandates transfer to Special Court

The High Court ruled that the date of cognizance and status as an elected representative govern the forum, meaning regular criminal courts cannot proceed with taking cognizance once an accused is an MP or MLA. Consequently, the magistrate's cognizance order was legally untenable and liable to be quashed.

The court made it clear that quashing the magistrate's order does not terminate the criminal prosecution, as the matter must be placed before the appropriate Special Court to regulate its procedure in accordance with law.

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 77 of 2011 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, CN Halli, Tumakuru District. The court remitted the matter to the Special Court for trial of cases filed against sitting and former MPs and MLAs triable by Magistrates in Karnataka, directing the jurisdictional Special Court to regulate its procedure and pass orders in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: November 04, 2026