Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

Jurisdictional Flaws Render Investigation and Cognizance Invalid: Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings in Election-Related Offences

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgement, quashed the criminal proceedings against Mohd. Rashid Khan for alleged offenses during the 2017 Urban Local Bodies Election. The Bench, led by Hon'ble Justice Shamim Ahmed, on March 15, 2024, ruled that the police action and subsequent judicial cognizance in the case involving Sections 171 H and 188 of the IPC were marred by jurisdictional errors and procedural irregularities.

The case arose from an FIR lodged against Khan for placing a poster during the election campaign, purportedly violating Sections 171 H and 188 IPC. The crux of the legal debate revolved around whether the FIR and consequent proceedings were in line with the legal procedures prescribed under the IPC and Cr.P.C., especially Sections 195 and 482.

Justice Ahmed's analysis underscored critical lapses. He emphasized that for offences under Section 171 H (IPC), cognizance by the court necessitates a written complaint by the concerned public servant, as opposed to an FIR by police, a procedure not followed in this case. The court noted, "Section 171 H IPC is non-cognizable, and Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. mandates a specific procedure for cognizance."

Delving into procedural infirmities, the court observed that the investigation into a non-cognizable offence without a magistrate's order and the magistrate's failure to apply judicial mind in taking cognizance rendered the proceedings invalid. "The investigation done by the police is without jurisdiction and based on such invalid investigation report, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is also illegal," Justice Ahmed remarked.

Concluding the assessment, the court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and all criminal proceedings against Khan. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural propriety and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Date of Decision: 15.03.2024

Mohd. Rashid Khan vs State Of U.P. & Another

Similar News