CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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