Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

FIR Under Section 174-A IPC Barred Without Court's Written Complaint: Allahabad High Court

16 October 2024 12:50 PM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the applicants, citing the necessity for a written complaint from the court that initiated the proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The decision reinforces the legal safeguards for the accused, particularly concerning the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case arose from an FIR registered under Section 498A and 304B IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants were subsequently declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 Cr.P.C., leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC. The applicants challenged the FIR and the summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Lucknow on the grounds that the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were unsustainable in law, as they were initiated based on a police report rather than a written complaint by the court.

The court emphasized the legal requirement under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., which restricts the court from taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, including Section 174-A, except on the complaint of the public servant concerned or the court that issued the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted that despite Section 174-A IPC being a cognizable offense, the legislature intended for it to be treated differently to prevent unnecessary harassment of the accused and to protect their personal liberty.

The court also critically examined previous judgments from the Delhi High Court and Single Benches of the Allahabad High Court, which allowed FIRs under Section 174-A IPC based on police reports. The Allahabad High Court held that these interpretations were incorrect, as they overlooked the legislative intent and the explicit requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

The court observed, "Permitting lodging of an F.I.R. under Section 174-A IPC without a written complaint from the court would amount to a travesty of justice and a violation of the accused’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedural safeguards under Section 195 Cr.P.C. must be strictly adhered to."

The Allahabad High Court's ruling provides crucial clarity on the procedural requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 174-A IPC. By quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings, the court has reinforced the need for judicial oversight and adherence to due process, particularly when personal liberty is at stake. This judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent, ensuring that legal provisions are not misused to infringe on the rights of individuals.

Date of Decision: 29th August 2024

Ravi Dev Singh @ Ravidev Yadav And Another vs. The State Of U.P.

Similar News