Back
Pratap Simha's FIR Challenge: Says Wrong Court Sending Mere Irregularity Not Ground
The on Monday heard submissions in a significant criminal procedure matter, where BJP leader and former Member of Parliament Pratap Simha sought the of two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him. The State, opposing the plea, argued that merely sending an FIR to a court lacking jurisdiction amounts to a , not an that would warrant . The Court, while noting the State’s admissions regarding jurisdictional errors, reserved its orders on the petitions.
Simha, who represented the Mysuru-Kodagu constituency in the Lok Sabha, faces two separate FIRs arising from an alleged speech delivered during a Ganesha Visarjan procession in T. Narasipura on . The first FIR, registered , invoked multiple sections of the , including Section 356 (defamation). The second FIR, filed on by the President of a local association, added allegations under the , specifically Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u). Simha contends that the FIRs are politically motivated and that his remarks were directed at a police officer’s conduct, not any community.
Jurisdictional Flaw Admitted by State
The core legal issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the court that received the FIR. Simha’s counsel, , pointed out that as a former MP, any case against him must be tried by a designated , constituted by the in 2018. However, the FIR invoking Section 356 BNS was sent to the , which Dalwai argued lacked the authority to take or delete charges.
“It's not a special court. I am a former Member of Parliament. After 2018, the constituted special courts… As of today, 356 has been conveniently deleted so that FIR could be sustained,” Dalwai submitted. He further relied on , corresponding to , to argue that defamation can be taken of only upon a complaint by the aggrieved person, not through a police report.
“Once you invoke 356 BNS, the bar under 222 BNSS applies… If there is a , the entire registration of FIR becomes illegal,” Dalwai argued, contending that the complainant would have to pursue a . He urged that the inclusion of Section 356 in the FIR, and its subsequent deletion by the Sessions Court without jurisdiction, vitiated the entire proceeding.
State’s Counter: Does Not Vitate Proceedings
The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) countered by emphasizing that sending the FIR to the wrong court is at best a , not an that would justify under . “If we accept the argument that the FIR is sent to the wrong court, can it be quashed? The answer is no, milord,” the SPP submitted.
The SPP acknowledged that the FIR had been “wrongly” sent to the and that the court had passed an order deleting Section 356 without jurisdiction. However, he argued that Sections 506 and 508 BNSS, which deal with procedural irregularities that do not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown, could cure the defect. “Wrongly I have incorporated 356 in the FIR. Rightly I have sent a requisition. But does the wrong court vitiate the entire proceedings?” he asked.
Court’s Observations on
The Bench, comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna, engaged closely with the State’s submissions. The Court noted that the State was conceding two critical points: first, that the FIR was sent to a court lacking jurisdiction, and second, that the Sessions Court had passed an order deleting Section 356 without jurisdiction. The Court then observed:
“Two things you admit: the FIR was sent to a court with no jurisdiction, and the order was passed by a Sessions Court also without jurisdiction. But you are saving this by & …”
The Court’s observation suggests that while the State seeks refuge under provisions, the Bench is concerned about the foundational legality of the proceedings. The applicability of Sections 506 and 508 BNSS will likely be a pivotal issue in the final judgment.
Legal Implications for Defamation and Jurisdictional Challenges
This case raises important questions about the interplay between jurisdiction, procedural compliance, and the power to quash FIRs. Under the BNSS, Section 506 provides that no order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on account of any error, omission, or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, or other proceedings unless such error has occasioned a . Section 508 similarly protects judgments from being set aside for mere irregularities.
However, the Court’s pointed remarks indicate that the error here may be more than a mere irregularity—it goes to the root of jurisdiction. The Sessions Court, lacking authority to handle cases involving former MPs, should not have entertained the FIR or passed any order regarding deletion of charges. If the High Court accepts this argument, the entire proceeding before the Sessions Court could be rendered .
Furthermore, the defamation charge under Section 356 BNS is procedurally distinct: it requires a by the aggrieved person under Section 222 BNSS. The State’s reliance on may not salvage the case if the FIR itself was legally unsustainable from the outset due to the absence of a complaint. Simha’s counsel has forcefully argued that the bar under Section 222 BNSS applies the moment Section 356 is invoked, making the FIR illegal.
Broader Impact on Criminal Procedure
The ’s decision in this matter could have far-reaching consequences for criminal proceedings involving former MPs and MLAs. The constitution of special courts to try such individuals was intended to ensure speedy and fair trials, but the current case exposes a gap in implementation—where FIRs are still being routed to regular courts. If the Court holds that such jurisdictional errors are fatal, it may compel police and lower courts to strictly adhere to the designated forum.
Additionally, the case underscores the importance of Section 222 BNSS in defamation cases. The provision prevents police from registering an FIR for defamation without a complaint, a safeguard that the State’s argument appears to circumvent by invoking . Legal experts suggest that this could lead to more scrutiny of FIRs that include defamation charges alongside other offences, particularly when the complainant is not the aggrieved person.
Conclusion
As the prepares to deliver its judgment, the legal community awaits clarity on two critical issues: whether sending an FIR to a court without jurisdiction is a or a , and whether the inclusion of a defamation charge in a police FIR, without a , can be salvaged by subsequent deletion. Pratap Simha’s challenge, rooted in allegations of political vendetta, has inadvertently raised procedural questions that could reshape the handling of criminal cases involving public figures. The outcome will not only affect Simha but also set a precedent for similar challenges across the state.
