Jurisdictional Flaws Render Investigation and Cognizance Invalid: Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings in Election-Related Offences

Share:
advocate judicial party RPF Advocates live Mother SARFAESI steel v Departmental properly Evidence Divorce Property Factual Bail FIR 376 Bail bail Child Allahabad High Cour 1989 Appointment Investigation Cheque Fear mother IIIT court Law application Acquittal 29A Marriage Maintenance Dowry Application dowryMarriage bail Land Earning Justice Written Statement Maintenance Summoning Rape Video Death Bail Guilty jurisdiction 138Assault investigation Temple bail Wife velectricity Child Drinking final murder Love Cheque Throwing Brick Husband NDPS Case  allahabad addition preliminary evidence Cheque Bounce murder evidence grievances dowry 210 consideration order corporation advocate certificate marriage application mechanical maintenance financial evidence electricity wife probation bail individual investigation

Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgement, quashed the criminal proceedings against Mohd. Rashid Khan for alleged offenses during the 2017 Urban Local Bodies Election. The Bench, led by Hon’ble Justice Shamim Ahmed, on March 15, 2024, ruled that the police action and subsequent judicial cognizance in the case involving Sections 171 H and 188 of the IPC were marred by jurisdictional errors and procedural irregularities.

Legal Background and Issues:

The case arose from an FIR lodged against Khan for placing a poster during the election campaign, purportedly violating Sections 171 H and 188 IPC. The crux of the legal debate revolved around whether the FIR and consequent proceedings were in line with the legal procedures prescribed under the IPC and Cr.P.C., especially Sections 195 and 482.

Court’s Assessment and Reasoning:

Justice Ahmed’s analysis underscored critical lapses. He emphasized that for offences under Section 171 H (IPC), cognizance by the court necessitates a written complaint by the concerned public servant, as opposed to an FIR by police, a procedure not followed in this case. The court noted, “Section 171 H IPC is non-cognizable, and Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. mandates a specific procedure for cognizance.”

Delving into procedural infirmities, the court observed that the investigation into a non-cognizable offence without a magistrate’s order and the magistrate’s failure to apply judicial mind in taking cognizance rendered the proceedings invalid. “The investigation done by the police is without jurisdiction and based on such invalid investigation report, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is also illegal,” Justice Ahmed remarked.

Decision:

Concluding the assessment, the court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and all criminal proceedings against Khan. The decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring procedural propriety and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Date of Decision: 15.03.2024

Mohd. Rashid Khan vs State Of U.P. & Another

Download Judgment

Share: