Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana 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 2:49 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