Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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