The ruling came in a batch of criminal revision petitions filed by C. Rajamani challenging orders passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in prosecutions alleging offences under Section 379 IPC read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate A. Ashwin Kumar, contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act on the basis of a police final report. Relying on Section 22 of the Act, it was argued that cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act could be taken only on the basis of a complaint filed by an authority authorised under the statute before the competent Special Court.

The State relied upon decisions including Sengol and Others v. State, Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, Annadurai v. Inspector of Police and Selvaraj @ Veppadai Selvaraj v. Inspector of Police to submit that proceedings relating to the IPC offence could continue notwithstanding the statutory bar contained in Section 22 of the MMDR Act.

After considering the rival submissions, Justice Lakshminarayanan held that the petitioner's contention was well-founded. The Court observed that Section 22 expressly bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act unless the prosecution is initiated through a complaint filed by a duly authorised person.

The Court noted that in the present cases the Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under both Section 379 IPC and Section 21 of the MMDR Act on the basis of the police final report. Since Section 22 prohibits such cognizance under the MMDR Act, the cognizance taken for the offence under Section 21 could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the Court discharged the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. However, it clarified that the final report would continue insofar as the offence under Section 379 IPC was concerned, thereby allowing the prosecution for theft to proceed.

The Court further observed that the Division Bench decision in Sengol and Others v. State had recognised that the Government had authorised the police to lodge a private complaint under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. Therefore, if the authorities so desired, they could still file a private complaint before the Special Court in accordance with law.

Partly allowing the criminal revision petitions, the Court set aside the cognizance taken for the offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act while permitting the prosecution for the offence under Section 379 IPC to continue.

Case: C. Rajamani v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri District & Connected Cases

For Petitioner: A. Ashwin Kumar

For Respondent: Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor