Crl.O.P.No.3811 of 2024N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai is suomotoimpleaded as third respondent in this petition and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the impleaded 3rd respondent.

Crl.O.P.No.3811 of 2024
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai is suomoto
impleaded as third respondent in this petition and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the impleaded 3rd respondent.

2. The Registrar (General) High Court, Madras is suomoto
   impleaded as 4th respondent in this petition. Mr. Arun Anbumani, learned Panel counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent is directed to take notice on behalf of the 4th respondent.
3. This Court had an occasion to deal with designation of one or
   more Metropolitan Magistrates, Chennai who would try criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs in accordance with the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aswini Upadhyay case. This Court while passing order in Crl. O.P.No.22136 of 2019 and etc., dated 12.05.2020 had taken note of the fact that there is not a single Metropolitan Magistrate Court that has been designated to try criminal cases against MPs / MLAs for the offences which are exclusively triable by the Magistrate Courts.
   https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Hence direction was issued to the impleaded 3rd and 4th
   respondents to look into the matter and to designate one or more Metropolitan Magistrates in Chennai for trying criminal cases related to elected MPs / MLAs. Till date, the same has not been done.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner wanted to file defamation case
   against the sitting MLA. Initially, the complaint was filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and the said
   Court did not entertain the complaint on the ground that there is a designated Special Court to exclusively try MPs / MLAs cases. Hence the petitioner represented the complaint before the Special Court. The Special Court has returned the complaint by stating that it does not have the jurisdiction to straight away take cognizance and the matter can only come up before the Special Court after it is committed by the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Hence left with no other option, the petitioner re-presented the complaint before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in view of the fact that the said Court was earlier designated as an exclusive Court at the Magisterial level to try cases against MPs / MLAs. However, the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate has also returned the complaint by taking note of the
   Government Order passed in G.O. Ms. No.535 dated 11.10.2019 wherein
   https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisjurisdiction was withdrawn pursuant to the representation given by the Registrar General, High Court to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government dated 06.09.2019.
6. The petitioner left with no other option has approached this Court
   seeking for appropriate directions. The earlier directions that were issued in Crl. O.P. No.22136 of 2019 etc., dated 12.05.2020 has not been acted upon. As a result, there is not a single Metropolitan Magistrate Court that has been designated in Chennai till date and therefore confusion remains with regard to those cases which are filed against MPs / MLAs which are exclusively triable at the Magisterial level.
7. Therefore, the impleaded 3rd and 4th respondents are directed to
   immediately act upon this order and come up with a clarification.
8. Post this case under the same caption on 05.03.2024..
   20.02.2024
   mjs
   https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
   N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
   mjs Crl.O.P.No.3811 of 2024
   20.02.2024
   https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis