CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

High Court Dismisses Application Challenging Charge Sheet and Summoning Order, Stresses Limits of Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed an application challenging a charge sheet and summoning order in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another. The court emphasized the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), stating that the exercise of inherent powers should be reserved to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice. The court further stressed that these powers should not be used to appreciate evidence or draw inferences, and the High Court should not interfere with the magistrate's order unless it is clearly illegal.

The Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J., delivering the judgment, stated, "The power bestowed upon the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined, and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the present application fulfills the requirement as contemplated." The court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal & others, emphasizing that the High Court should not delve into the merits of the case at the stage of taking cognizance.

The case revolved around allegations that the applicant had posted an objectionable and disrespectful picture of Lord Hanuman with an offensive tagline, which allegedly disturbed communal harmony. After a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the court took cognizance of the case, finding a prima facie case against the accused-applicant.

Citing previous precedents, the court reiterated that if an application is filed against a charge sheet after the conclusion of the investigation, the High Court cannot independently evaluate the evidence or draw its own inferences. Disputed questions of fact should be addressed by the lower court, and the High Court should refrain from intervening during this stage.

The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to the well-established guidelines and principles while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It serves as a reminder that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the alleged offenses are made out from the material placed before it, without delving into the merits of the case.

The judgment stands as a significant precedent, reaffirming the boundaries within which the High Court must operate in cases challenging charge sheets and summoning orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: June 5, 2023

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Latest Legal News