The court affirmed that a Magistrate can take cognizance of a private complaint against a sitting MLA, directing the case to a Special Court as per Supreme Court guidelines.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pursuant to PRC.No.27 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the respondent.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a sitting MLA. The respondent herein filed a private complaint as against the petitioner under Sections 190 and 410 of Cr.P.C., The respondent has not mentioned the petitioner's name in his private complaint. According to the learned counsel, with the intention to harass the petitioner, the respondent has filed the private complaint. Further, in order to support his complaint, the respondent has not filed any affidavit. The further contention is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint lodged by the respondent as against the petitioner. A Special court had been constituted in Chennai, vide G.O.Ms.No.210 (Home-Court II) Department, dated 26.04.2019, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to deal with the cases as against the sitting M.Ps and MLAs. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction in assigning P.R.C.No.27 of 2020 to the private complaint laid by the respondent. The learned Magistrate has not followed the procedures enumerated under the Criminal Procedure Code for taking cognizance of the offence, based on the private complaint lodged by the respondent.

4. Admittedly, the respondent has given a private complaint as against one Muthuraman, before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and the same was numbered as Cr.M.P.No.1773 of 2020 on 31.07.2020. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the learned Magistrate, Srivaigundam. The learned Magistrate, has taken the private complaint on file in Crl.M.P.No.809 of 2020. Though the respondent has not mentioned the petitioner's name in his private complaint, the petitioner has been arrayed as A2. Now, the petitioner has filed this criminal original petition to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.27 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, mainly on two grounds. The first one is that the respondent has no locus standi to file the case. The second one is due to personal and political motive, the respondent has filed the case.

5. Admittedly, the respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C.

Section 190 of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:

190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates:(1) Subject to the provisions of the Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub section(2) may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence

(b) upon a police report of such facts

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

While reading of the complaint, it is seen that the complaint is contemplated under Section 190 Cr.P.C. As far as taking cognizance of the offence is concerned, Section 193 Cr.P.C., is very clear. The complaint filed by the respondent is contemplated under (1)(a) Cr.P.C. As per Cr.P.C.,, the learned Magistrate has taken the complaint on file and sent summons to the petitioner for committal proceedings. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer of Cr.P.C., which reads