loader image

Cases Against Former or Sitting MPs, MLAs Must Go Before Special Courts Even For Pre-Election Offences: Karnataka HC

Cases Against Former or Sitting MPs, MLAs Must Go Before Special Courts Even For Pre-Election Offences: Karnataka HC

B.M. Farooq @ Bava Mohammed Farookh v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 7484/2024 [Order dated November 04, 2026]

Justice M. Nagaprasanna

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings pending against former Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) B.M. Farooq before a regular magistrate court, holding that cases involving sitting and former MPs and MLAs must be dealt with by the designated Special Court, irrespective of whether the alleged offences were committed before or after they became legislators.

BM Farooq challenged the magistrate court’s jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, arguing that criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs must be handled by the designated Special Court. State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha opposed the petition on merits but acknowledged that earlier High Court decisions had recognised the Special Court’s jurisdiction in such cases.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna accepted the plea, quashed the proceedings before the magistrate court and transferred the case to the designated Special Court for MPs and MLAs in Karnataka. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in Dr. K. Sudhakar v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 18116/2024 and Dr. Y. Ramappa v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 1510/2024 which recognised the jurisdiction of Special Courts constituted for trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs.

Also read Rajasthan High Court Bans Weddings, Parties and Restaurant Activities at Vidhyadhar Ka Bag Near Wildlife Area

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the purpose of establishing these Special Courts was to ensure expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving elected representatives. The Court held that their jurisdiction would not depend on whether the alleged offence was committed before the accused became a legislator, while holding office or after demitting office.

The Court observed that the Special Courts constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions were competent to take cognizance of and try cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, irrespective of the time at which the alleged offence was committed.

It further clarified that setting aside the cognizance order would not result in the complaint or investigation being extinguished. Instead, the matter would have to be placed before the court having jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with law.

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the proceedings and the matter was remitted to the Special Court constituted for trial of cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, with liberty to the Special Court to regulate its procedure and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Appearances

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate M. Aruna Shyam, assisted by Advocate Suyog Herele E.

For Respondent No. 1 (State of Karnataka): State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha.

For Respondent No. 2 (V. Selvaraj): Advocate Sathyanarayana Chalke, assisted by Advocate S. Rajendra.

PDF Icon

B.M. Farooq v. State of Karnataka 

Preview PDF