Procedural Lapses and Prolonged Incarceration Justify Bail Under NDPS Act: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Deposit of Sale Balance Is Not Fatal to Specific Performance Claims: Andhra High Court Justice Requires Insurance Company to Pay and Recover: Calcutta High Court on Fatal Accident Case IBC Moratorium Nullifies Vicarious Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act: Delhi High Court Fraud Unravels All: Partition Decree Set Aside for Suppressing Rights of Co-Owners: Madras High Court Matters of Evidence Must Be Examined at Trial, Not Preemptively Quashed: Kerala High Court Declines Quashment Leave Encashment Is a Property Right and Cannot Be Denied Without Statutory Authority: Gujarat High Court Widow's Right to Deceased Husband’s Property Ceases Upon Remarriage Before 1956: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Reassessment of Departmental Inquiries by Courts, Orders Interest on Delayed GPF Payments: P&H High Court Investigations Initiated Before BNSS, 2023, Must Proceed Under Cr.P.C., 1973: Rajasthan High Court Third-Party Objector’s Locus Standi in Criminal Cases Must Have a Bona Fide Connection: Madhya Pradesh High Court Amendments After Trial Commences Barred Without Demonstration of Due Diligence - Contradictory Claims Cannot Be Permitted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Double Presumption of Innocence in Appeals Against Acquittals Must Be Respected: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape and Carnal Intercourse Case Provisional Release Not Prejudice Revenue Interests: Kerala High Court Permits Provisional Release of Seized Goods Under GST Act GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without Objective Criteria:  Delhi High Court Neither the Statutory Framework nor Lease Terms Compel Conveyance of Property: Supreme Court Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme Court

Hasty and Tainted Investigation – Investigation found to violate Cr.P.C. provisions: Allahabad High Court Quashes Obscene Acts Case Against Student

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court has quashed the summoning order and charge sheet against Monu Kumar in a case alleging obscene acts and comments under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed on May 30, 2024, criticized the investigation for being hasty and tainted, with significant procedural lapses that undermined the integrity of the case.

Background of the Case: Monu Kumar, a bright undergraduate student at Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya, Unnao, affiliated with Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, was implicated in a case under Section 294 IPC. The case stemmed from an incident on December 17, 2023, when Kumar and his friends were allegedly caught making obscene comments towards women passing by Jumka Nala bridge. The police registered an FIR against Kumar and his friends based on this incident, leading to a swift and controversial investigation and subsequent charge sheet.

Court Observations and Views:

Investigation Irregularities: Justice Ahmed highlighted the investigation’s numerous flaws, noting the failure to follow mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. “The investigation conducted in this case was marked by haste and a failure to follow due process, including the neglect of mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C.,” the court observed. The absence of independent witnesses or examination of the females allegedly subjected to the obscene comments critically weakened the prosecution’s case.

Absence of Independent Witnesses: Despite the incident occurring at a busy public location, no independent witnesses were included in the investigation. “The absence of independent witnesses or statements from the females allegedly affected by the comments raises serious doubts about the integrity of the investigation,” noted Justice Ahmed. This lack of corroborating evidence was a significant factor in the court’s decision to quash the proceedings.

Role of Accused and Case Circumstances: The court considered Monu Kumar’s personal circumstances, highlighting his academic background and lack of prior criminal record. “The applicant, a bright undergraduate student, appears to have been arbitrarily implicated without substantial evidence,” remarked Justice Ahmed. The court emphasized that Kumar’s implication seemed driven by ulterior motives rather than factual guilt, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The judgment underscored the necessity for judicial diligence when issuing summoning orders. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that summoning orders must be based on adequate evidence and thorough judicial application. “The summoning order in this case lacked the necessary judicial application of mind, making it arbitrary and unsustainable,” stated Justice Ahmed.

Justice Ahmed emphasized, “The investigation was conducted in a manner that overlooked mandatory provisions of criminal law, resulting in a false, fabricated, and concocted case against the applicant.” He further noted, “The order of issuance of process must reflect a prima facie case and sufficient grounds for proceeding, which was evidently missing here.”

Decision: The Allahabad High Court’s decision to quash the summoning order and charge sheet against Monu Kumar underscores the importance of thorough and unbiased investigations in the criminal justice system. By highlighting the procedural lapses and the arbitrary nature of the proceedings, the judgment sets a significant precedent for upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law. This decision is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the necessity for diligent and fair investigations before implicating individuals in criminal offenses.

Date of Decision: 30th May 2024

Monu Kumar vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

Similar News