Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 06-12-2023, passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi (‘ACMM’) whereby petitioner’s application seeking transfer or return of complaint on account of lack of jurisdiction, was rejected by the ACMM. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, concurred with ACMM’s decision whereby it observed that whether sitting legislator committed an offence, or an offence was allegedly committed by a former legislator, a case could be tried by the Special Court, set up for dealing with cases against the MPs/MLAs whether sitting or former.
Background
Petitioner was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi and became MLA on 14-04-2017; however, he ceased being an MLA on 11-02-2020. It was stated that since petitioner had ceased to be an MLA, and a criminal complaint had been filed against him pertaining to the period when he ceased to be an MLA since the allegations relate to the period post 16-02-2020, the case pending against him could not have been tried by a Special Court dealing with cases against MPs/MLAs.
Petitioner submitted that the intention of the Supreme Court behind setting up of Special Courts, was to expedite cases against legislators due to rising wave of criminalization in the politics in the country, and since the Supreme Court appreciated that due to the power that the elected representatives deem to have, Special Courts should try the case expeditiously. However, once a person ceased to be a sitting MP/MLA, and the alleged offences related to post-period when the person was no longer an MP/MLA, the Special Court which had been setup for a specific purpose could not expand jurisdiction to try cases against such persons, who had ceased to be MP/MLA. It could not be the case of once a legislator, then always a legislator.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to the directions issued vide order dated 01-11-2017 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2195 and many other orders including the last order passed on 09-11-2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1463. The Court noted that vide order dated 04-12-2018, the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3713 had passed certain directions for effective disposal of criminal cases against sitting and former legislators. The Court further noted that vide order dated 05-03-2020, the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1234 had directed the High Courts to provide information about the pending cases against MPs/MLAs in a prescribed format, which would include (i) the MP/MLA involved in a case, (ii) whether sitting or former, (iii) date of FIR, (iv) offence alleged, (v) date of filing of charge sheet, (vi) date of framing of charges, (vii) present status, (viii) stay of trial, if any by the High Court, (ix) expected time of completion of trial, (x) name of the court, and (xi) the district in which the case was filed.
The Court after reading together the orders dated 01-11-2017, 04-12-2018, and 05-03-2018, opined that it was clear that the Special Courts were constituted for dealing with cases against the legislators i.e., MPs or MLAs, whether sitting or former and the Supreme Court nowhere observed that the Special Courts should try only those offences where accused was a sitting MP/MLA, at the time of commission of offence.
The Court thus held that this Court lacked jurisdiction to interpret the decision in a manner that deviated from the clear directions of the Supreme Court. This Court could not read something, in between the lines, which was neither the intent nor the content, finding or even obiter of the Supreme Court.
The Court opined that the Supreme Court’s order dated 09-11-2023, revealed that the objective behind constituting the Special Courts was to deal with cases filed against MPs/MLAs, sitting or former, with a view to ensure that the cases pending against them were tried expeditiously.
The Court held that petitioner was a former MLA and the argument that he had ceased to be an MLA at the time of commission of alleged offence could not be a bar to his case being tried by the Special Court, constituted to deal with the criminal cases pending against MPs/MLAs. The Court opined that petitioner failed to convince this Court, as to how his case, being tried expeditiously, could cause any prejudice to petitioner. Thus, the Court held that there was no infirmity in ACMM’s order, and the Special Courts could try offences pending against sitting or former MPs/MLAs, and there was no specific bar for trial of a person who had ceased to be an MP/MLA, when he had allegedly committed an offence.
The Court concurred with ACMM’s decision whereby it observed that whether sitting legislator committed an offence, or an offence was allegedly committed by a former legislator, a case could be tried by the Special Court, set up for dealing with cases against the MPs/MLAs whether sitting or former.
[Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 70, decided on 08-01-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.K. Handoo, Yoginder Handoo, Aditya Chaudhary, Solanki, Medha Gaur, Advocates
For the Respondents: Manoj Pant, APP; Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate; Naginder Benipal, Sumit Mishra, Bharti Nayar Benipal, Naveen Chaudhary, Marithi Kambiri, Ankit Siwach, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
