Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Summoning Order in Dowry Case: Cites Violation of Provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court on 11 Sep. 2023 set aside a summoning order against Mohammad Ayub Rizvi and Others in a dowry case filed by Smt. Salma Khan. The Bench headed by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh questioned the approach of the lower court, highlighting that "the learned trial court ignoring the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., proceeded in the matter and has summoned the present applicants under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act."

The applicants had approached the High Court under Section 482, seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.942/18 under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C., and Section 4 D.P. Act, along with the summoning order dated 13.9.2018.

During the proceedings, the applicants' counsel argued that there had been no proper inquiry or investigation before proceeding against them. They also emphasized the violation of Section 210 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. The counsel added that the summoning order lacked reasoning and had been "passed in a cavalier manner."

The court, in its judgement, agreed with the applicants' contention, stating that "the procedure prescribed under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. is very specific" and was not followed by the trial court. The judgement also cited the Apex Court’s verdict in the case of Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, underlining that the "requirement of conducting inquiry or directing investigation before issuing process is not an empty formality."

The court thus concluded that the trial court's approach was not in line with the legal mandates, setting aside the summoning order and sending the case back for reconsideration.

The decision has been met with mixed reactions, but it underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that legal procedures are rigorously followed before taking punitive actions.

 Date of Decision: 11 September 2023

Mohammad Ayub Rizvi and Others vs Smt. Salma Khan and Another

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Mohammad_Ayub_Rizvi_And_Others_vs_Smt_Salma_Khan_And_Another_11_September_2023_ALLH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News