Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Jitendra Patwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
1. An office objection has been raised by the office, with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The Petitioner is a former M.L.A. An FIR has been lodged against him in crime No.355/2024 at police station Dabra, Distt. Gwalior for offence under section 509 of IPC and under section 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The undisputed fact is that when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was not the sitting M.L.A. and even today, he is not the sitting M.L.A. The only question which arises in the present case is that what is the meaning of word “former M.L.A./M.P.”
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (2021) 20 SCC 613 has held as under :
“14. One of the main objectives behind issuing notice in the present writ petition, and the various orders that have been passed time to time by this Court, was to ensure that criminal prosecutions against elected representatives (MPs and MLAs) are concluded expeditiously. The Court was of the opinion that such special consideration was required not only because of the rising wave of criminal
Special Courts for MPs/MLAs can try cases against former and sitting legislators irrespective of their status at the time of the alleged offence.
Expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – These cases have a direct bearing on our political democracy – There is a compelling need to ....
THE SPECIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENCES COMMITTED BY BOTH SITTING AND FORMER MPS AND MLAS PROVIDED AS ON THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE, THE ACCUSED WAS EITHER A MP OR A MLA.
The court affirmed that the designated Court for trials concerning MPs/MLAs holds jurisdiction regardless of the accused's current status, prioritizing established legal procedures over claims of inc....
Jurisdiction of designated Courts for trials involving MPs/MLAs is determined by the status at the time of the offence, following directions from the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction for criminal trials involving former MPs/MLAs remains under designated courts if they held office at the time of the offence, affirming the principle of convenience for the defence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of jurisdiction in trying cases and the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial.
The Special Court under the SC/ST Act can take cognizance of offences without prior commitment from a Magistrate and amendments have no retrospective effect unless expressly stated.
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC without prior committal by a Magistrate, aligning with the hierarchy of c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
