Reserved on : 28.08.2026 Pronounced on : 04.11.2026

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

L C o o c u a r t t i o o n f : High Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2023 OF TAKING COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 OF ISSUING PROCESS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CN HALLI, TUMKURU DISTRICT INCLUDING THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.77/2011 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 409, 420, 461, 468, 471, 120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURUSANT THERETO, (PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1, 2 AND 3).

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.77 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 461, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’ for short).

2. Heard Sri. M. Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor-I appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner on

10-04-2021 for the aforesaid offences. The police, after investigation, file a ‘B’ report on 16-03-2020. A protest petition is filed against the ‘B’ report and the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences on 04-05-2023. An intervening circumstance takes place in the interregnum: the petitioner gets elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

Therefore, the subject petition is preferred, contending that the regular Court has taken cognizance of the offences, whereas it ought to have been taken by the Special Court. On this score, an interim order is granted and the same is in subsistence to date.

4. The learned senior counsel, Sri. M. Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences, in the light of the creation of a Court to try offences against people’s representatives. Therefore, he would restrict his submission to the plea that the concerned Court did not have jurisdiction and that the matter be remitted to the Special Court for taking cognizance.

5. The learned State Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, though he would refute the submissions on merit, would admit that this Court and the co-ordinate Bench have clearly held that the Special Court should have taken cognizance and not the regular Court.

6. In identical circumstances, this Court in the case of DR. K. SUDHAKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P.No.18116 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024, has held as follows:

“.... .... ....

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On the aforesaid fact, emerges the complaint. On the complaint, comes an FIR registered against these petitioners. They are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The police after investigation seek to file their final report, before which Court, is required to be noticed. The petitioner is an elected representative, insofar as elected representatives are concerned, two Courts are constituted pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court. One, the Special Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MP's and MLA’s, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka and the other Special Court of the District Judge - the Court of Session. Since, the petitioner was a people representative, the police after investigation ought to have filed their final report before the Special Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MP's and MLA’s, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka and not the Court of the Regular Magistrate. In terms of the Government Order No.LA 10 LCE 2018, Bengaluru, dated 08.0