Court Rules that Criminal Cases Against Sitting or Former MPs/MLAs Must be Tried Only by Special Courts, Regardless of When Offences Were Committed
In a significant judgment delivered on November 4, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed the proceedings initiated by a regular Magistrate against B.M. Farooq @ Bava Mohammed Farookh, a sitting Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (MLA). The Court ruled that criminal cases involving sitting or former MPs and MLAs must be exclusively tried by Special Courts constituted for this purpose, irrespective of whether the alleged offence occurred before, during, or after their tenure as legislators.
The petitioner faced allegations under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 461 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the police investigation resulted in a 'B' report (closure report), a protest petition led the regular Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences in May 2023. However, by that time, the petitioner had been elected as an MLA.
The petitioner challenged the regular Court's jurisdiction, asserting that cognizance and trial must be before the Special Court constituted for criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs. The High Court agreed, referencing earlier decisions including Dr. K. Sudhakar v. State of Karnataka and Dr. Y. Ramappa v. State of Karnataka, which consistently held that Special Courts are the proper forum for trials of cases against sitting or former legislators.
The Court emphasized that the objective behind establishing these Special Courts is to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases against people's representatives, thereby preventing undue delays and jurisdictional confusion. It was noted that the Special Courts have jurisdiction regardless of whether the offence was committed before the accused became a legislator, during their tenure, or after demitting office.
While quashing the proceedings before the regular Magistrate, the High Court clarified that this does not nullify the complaint or the police investigation. Instead, the case record is to be transferred to the competent Special Court, which shall regulate the procedure and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
This ruling reinforces the legal framework aimed at streamlining criminal trials involving elected representatives in Karnataka and underscores the importance of following procedural mandates to uphold the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
Criminal cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs in Karnataka must be placed before the Special Court constituted for such cases; cognizance taken by a regular Magistrate is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, irrespective of whether the offence was allegedly committed before or after the accused became a legislator.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 409, 420, 461, 468, 471, 120B; Criminal Procedure Code Section 190(1)(b)
B.M. Farooq @ Bava Mohammed Farookh v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3014173
