Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |    

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