M.p. High Court Invalidates Trial Court's Jurisdiction In Matters Against Elected Mps And Mlas; Emphasized Legal Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.p.c.

Case title:  

Smt. Sumitra Devi Kasdekar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order:

28th February, 2024

Bench:  

Hon’ble Justice Shri Sanjay Dwivedi

Parties:

Appellants: Smt. Sumitra Devi Kasdekar

Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh, Balchand Shinde

SUBJECT:

Jurisdiction and Competency of Trial Court in Entertaining Complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Sec 482 Criminal Code of Procedure: Inherent Powers of the High Court.

Sec 156(3) Criminal Code of Procedure: An application may be made to the magistrate, who may then order the police to register an FIR and to investigate if the application discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Sec 154 (1) Criminal Code of Procedure: Whoever has knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence may disclose it to the police and the police shall enter the information in a book.

Sec 154 (3) Criminal Code of Procedure: Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police.

Sec 200 Criminal Code of Procedure: outlines the procedure for a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence.

OVERVIEW:

• In the present case, a petition was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh where the petitioner sought to quash an order passed on 20.05.2022 where the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of Burhanpur took cognizance of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 u/s 156(3) C.r.P.c.
• In response to this, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision.
• The learned Revisional Court rejected the revision by order dated 08.06.2022 on the ground that it was not maintainable as the order passed had a remedy available under Sec 482 Cr.P.C.
• Discontented with the decision, the present petition was filed before the High Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class of Burhanpur, which took cognizance of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was subject to challenge?
• Whether the trial court had jurisdiction and competency to entertain a complaint related to MPs/MLAs under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.?
• Whether the sequence of actions taken by the complainant, who directly approached the Superintendent of Police before filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., adhered to the prescribed procedural steps?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• The learned counsel of the petitioner criticized the impugned order on the ground that J.M of the first class had not examined the mandatory requirement of filing a complaint u/s 156(3) of CrPC.
• It was argued that it was the complainant’s duty to first approach the concerned police station u/s 154 (1) CrPC and if nothing was done by the police only then he could make an application u/s 154(3) CrPC.
• It was contended that it was the trial court’s duty to assess whether the submitted complaint was made relating to a cognizable offence and whether the allegation contained in it constituted a cognizable offence
• It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court without considering all the important aspects and the procedural steps directed the police to register an FIR and submit a charge sheet against the petitioner.
• It was further argued that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed u/s 156(3) CrPC related to MPs/MLAs in view of notification dated 14.12.2021 that was issued by the HC under the SC judgment in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI and Anr. which stated of setting up of Special courts dealing with criminal cases registered against elected MPs and MLAs.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS:

• The learned counsel of the respondent submitted that this was not the proper stage to entertain the petition filed u/s 482 CrPC.
• It was argued that defining whether an offence was cognizable or not comes under the domain and discretion of the court.
• It was submitted that documents available on record showed that the complainant approached the police station and only when no action was taken then a complaint was made u/s 156(3) CrPC. Furthermore, earlier a writ petition supported by several documents was filed by the complainant where it was pleaded to the Court to direct the police authorities to take cognizance of the matter but the petition was disposed of which compelled the complaint to avail the last remedy u/s 156(3) or u/s 200 CrPC.
• It was contended that the petitioner had challenged the order solely on technicalities. The main part of the case dealt with the conduct of the petitioner needed to be examined as being a public leader she had submitted a false affidavit, took advantage of her post, and deprived an eligible person of getting their gas agency.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• After listening to the arguments of both counsels, the Court first decided on the question regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court of entertaining a complaint filed u/s 156(3) CrPC and held accordingly that the said court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the order was set aside accordingly.
•  The present petition was allowed after the court underwent a careful consideration of the notification dated 14.12.2021 and the direction issued by the SC in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI and Anr.  regarding the establishment of special courts to deal with criminal matters related to MPs and MLAs as was cited by the learned counsel of the appellant and thus keeping this in mind held that the Court of Burhanpur had neither jurisdiction nor competency to try the complaint filed by the appellant u/s 156(3) CrPC.
• The HC directed the trial court to forward the complaint to the competent court where the parties can take up the matter.
• Since the learned Court had decided on the basic ground of competency and jurisdiction of the trial court, it was maintained that the court would not be dealing with the other ground raised by the petitioner as the main issue has been looked at.

CONCLUSION:

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Kasdekar v. State of Madhya Pradesh addressed the crucial issue of the trial court's jurisdiction and competency in entertaining a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Code of Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court, led by Hon’ble Justice Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, concluded that the trial court in Burhanpur lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and subsequently set aside the order.