Order Passed Without Any Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC Quashes Process U/S 82 CrPC Issued Against Congress MP Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey
The Allahabad High Court quashed the process issued under Section 82 of CrPC passed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) holding that the orders passed were without jurisdiction.
The accused, who was an M.P. affiliated with the Indian National Congress, had filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order passed by a CJM. The CJM had initiated proceedings under Section 82(1) of CrPC and issued a non-bailable warrant against the applicant.
The applicant argued against the jurisdiction of the CJM and contended that the orders passed were void ab initio.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed, “Thus, without going into further deliberation, it prima facie appears that both impugned orders…have been passed without any jurisdiction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda…the instant matter has been subsequently transferred by him (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda) in the court of designated Magistrate constituted for the purpose of dealing with the cases of MP/MLA. It is also reflected that one of the impugned order…has been passed without recording satisfaction pertaining to non-service of non-bailable warrants earlier issued, which is a condition precedent in the considered opinion of this Court.”
Advocate Nadeem Murtaza represented the applicant, while AGA Rajesh Singh appeared for the opposite parties.
The applicant argued that the orders passed by the CJM were without jurisdiction since another magistrate had already been designated to handle cases related to MPs/MLAs.
As per the terms of Section 82 CrPC while issuing a process under Section 82 CrPC, satisfaction must be recorded by the issuing court that any other process could not procure the presence of the accused, and only after that the process under Section 82 CrPC can be issued.
The applicant stated that he was ready to cooperate with the investigation and was intending to appear before the trial court to move a regular bail application, but apprehended that in the meantime the police may arrest him.
The Court considered the submissions of the applicant and noted that “it is evident from the administrative order…passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda that the instant applicant has been an M.P. of a political party and thus, this case is required to be dealt with by a designated court of Magistrate constituted for the purpose.”
The Court held that the CJM had passed orders when there was already a designated Magistrate available and who was competent to pass any order pertaining to MPs/MLAs.
The Court also imposed a condition that “If the applicant would not appear before the trial court/designated court within the period stipulated…the trial court/designated court would be free to issue coercive process against the applicant in accordance with law against the applicant for securing his presence.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application.
Cause Title: Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (2024:AHC-LKO:10951)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Nadeem Murtaza, Anjani Kumar Mishra and Asma Shamim
Opposite Parties: AGA Rajesh Singh
