Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32801
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
RITIK @ PETER & ORS. – Respondent
TR.P.(CRL.) 115/2024
LAKSH KHANNA
All criminal proceedings involving MPs/MLAs must be heard by designated courts, consolidating jurisdiction to ensure uniformity, as mandated by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) MCOC Act, 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Transfer of proceedings - Petition filed by the State for transferring proceedings from the Court of ASJ-03/Special Judge to the Designated Court for MPs/MLAs at Rouse Avenue, New Delhi - No objection from co-accused - Supreme Court's direction in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India mandates that all criminal proceedings involving MPs/MLAs be heard by designated courts. (Paras 1, 5, 7)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that proceedings involving the same FIR cannot occur in different courts, affirming the need for a unified trial under designated courts for MPs/MLAs. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the State, sought the transfer of proceedings related to FIR No.165/2024 involving co-accused, including a sitting MLA, to a designated court. The co-accused had no objection to the transfer. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that all proceedings involving MPs/MLAs must be consolidated in designated courts to ensure uniformity and adherence to Supreme Court directives. (Paras 5, 7)
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether proceedings under MCOC Act involving MPs/MLAs must be transferred to designated courts as per Supreme Court directions. (Paras 3, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's omnibus directive necessitates the transfer of all related proceedings to designated courts for MPs/MLAs, reinforcing jurisdictional consistency. (Paras 5, 7)
Result: Petition disposed of with directions for transfer to the designated court.
O R D E R
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner/State seeks transfer of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.165/2024 registered under Sections 3 and 4 MCOC Act, 1999 at PS Crime Branch, Delhi from the Court of ASJ- 03/Special Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi to ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MPs/MLAs cases) Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, who have joined the proceedings through VC along with respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that he has no objection to the prayers made in this petition.
3. Mr. Khanna, learned APP for the State/petitioner submits that the co- accused Naresh Balyan is a sitting MLA from Delhi and the proceedings in the context of the aforesaid FIR qua Naresh Balyan are being carried out at Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. He submits that since the present respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the co-accused in the very same FIR, they may also be proceeded against at the aforesaid Court at Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. In support of his submissions, learned APP has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the , decided in W.P.(C) 699/2016. He submits that in context of one FIR, proceedings cannot take place in two different Courts.
records.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay (Supra) directed that all criminal proceedings involving MP/MLAs (sitting or former) to be heard by Designated Courts constituted for this purpose. These directions are omnibus in nature and do not exclude any special legislations like MCOC Act which may have their own Designated Courts. Thus, once it is clear that a current or former MP/MLA has been made an accused in a criminal case, the appropriate forum for the trial of that case will be the
6. A reference may be made to the case of Designated MP/MLA Court.
State v. Rambeer Shokeen , decided on 11.01.2023 in TR.P (Crl.) 93/2022 wherein A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:
“...2. The Ld. APP has submitted that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay (supra) do not indicated whether proceedings which are pending under MCOCA would also be transferred to these Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs. He has further placed reliance upon the nature of the MCOCA provisions, in particular Section 5.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay (supra). A perusal of the said orders would indicate that even though there is no specific discussion on MCOCA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed inter alia on 10 th September, 2020 that “._.it is clear that all the criminal cases even under special legislations, where MPs/MLAs (sitting or former) are involved are the subject matter of the present proceedings”.
4. These observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicate that no particular proceeding involving the criminal offence was excluded from the purview of the omnibus directions passed.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court since all criminal proceedings involving MPs/MLAs (sitting or former) were directed to be heard by Designated Courts constituted for this purpose, the proceedings relating to FIR No.10/2015 relating to the respondent, who is a former MLA be accordingly transferred to the Designated Court at Rouse Avenue Courts Complex.
6. A copy of the said order be sent to the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex to allot the case to the Court having competent jurisdiction under the District..
7. Party shall appear before the Principal District & Sessions Judge on16th January, 2023.”
7. As the proceedings qua Naresh Balyan are stated to being held in the Court of ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MPs/MLAs Cases), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, Considering the
