The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the Judicial Magistrate First-Class at Burhanpur lacks jurisdiction to handle a criminal complaint against former Nepanagar MLA Sumitra Devi. However, the court has instructed the trial court to transfer the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the designated special judge at the Indore District Court.

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, presiding over a single-judge bench, highlighted that the alleged offense occurred during Sumitra Devi's tenure as the elected representative of Nepanagar. Therefore, the jurisdiction to try the offense lies exclusively with the competent court in Burhanpur District, rather than with the Judicial Magistrate First-Class (JMFC) in that area.

Justice Dwivedi's reference to the notification dated 14.12.2021 issued by the High Court follows the precedent set by the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr. This notification likely outlines the jurisdictional parameters and procedures for cases involving elected representatives, guiding the court's decision in this matter.

Balchand Shinde, the complainant, first raised concerns about incorrect information submitted via a false affidavit to the election commission. Initially, he approached the Superintendent of Police and other higher authorities regarding this matter. However, upon encountering inaction, Shinde proceeded to file a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Burhanpur. Subsequently, the trial court instructed the police to initiate a case against the former MLA and commence the investigation.

In issuing the aforementioned transfer order, the court clarified that the former legislator retains the right to raise objections regarding the validity of the complaint and any discrepancies in the initiation of proceedings before the competent special court. The High Court opted not to address these issues itself, as it had already ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the trial court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

During proceedings before the High Court, the counsel representing the respondent no.2, who is the complainant, contended that the question of whether the offense was cognizable or not falls outside the purview of a Section 482 application under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) filed by the opposing party.

Advocate Ravindra Kumar Gupta, representing the respondent no.2, further argued that a previous writ petition filed by the complainant had been dismissed by the High Court, with instructions to pursue remedies available under Section 156 or Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The complainant complied with this directive by subsequently filing the complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

Senior Advocate Manish Datt, representing the former MLA, argued that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) failed to consider the steps that the complainant should have taken before resorting to Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Datt contended that the complainant should have initially approached the relevant police station under Section 154(1) of the CrPC, rather than directly filing the complaint before the JMFC.

Furthermore, Senior Advocate Manish Datt emphasized that if the initial approach to the police station under Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) proved futile, the complainant would have been justified in resorting to Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Datt asserted that no cognizable offense had been established warranting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the submission of a chargesheet. He reiterated the primary contention regarding the Judicial Magistrate First Class's incompetence to entertain the complaint.

After considering the arguments presented, the court partially granted the petitioner's request to quash the 2022 order issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Burhanpur, which had taken cognizance of the filed complaint. The court directed the registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the submission of a chargesheet.

As an interim measure, the court had previously suspended the enforcement of the challenged order dated 20/05/2022 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Burhanpur.

The petitioner, Sumitra Devi Kasdekar, served as a Congress MLA for Nepanagar, having been elected in 2018. In August 2020, she switched her allegiance from the Indian National Congress to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Subsequently, she successfully contested and won in the by-elections, retaining her position until 2023.

Senior counsel for the petitioner was assisted by Advocate Eshan Datt. Government Advocate Alok Agnihotri appeared for the state.

Case Title: Sumitra Devi Kasdekar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Khaknar & Anr.

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 29487 of 2022