Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

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

Latest Legal News