Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Magistrate Have No Power to Modify Earlier Cognizance Order: Supreme Court Quashes Lower Court’s Order on Protest Petition:

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the judgment of the High Court in the case of Ramakant Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., emphasizing the limitations of judicial authority in modifying previous orders of cognizance. The apex court’s decision, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, underscored the procedural impropriety in entertaining protest petitions against orders taking cognizance.

The controversy stemmed from a protest petition filed against the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order, which originally took cognizance only against one Gupteshwar Singh, based on a CID charge-sheet that found no material against the appellants. The Chief Judicial Magistrate later modified this order to include the appellants, a move that the Supreme Court found legally unsound.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court observed, “Such a course was not permissible as it was not open for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain a protest petition against his earlier order of taking cognizance.” This statement, highlighting the crux of the legal issue, became a pivotal reference point in the judgment.

The High Court’s reliance on the Nupur Talwar vs. CBI and Anr. Case was also critically addressed. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred in applying the Nupur Talwar principle to a scenario where the protest petition was directed against an order of taking cognizance, thereby misinterpreting the legal framework.

This ruling clarifies the extent of judicial powers concerning cognizance and protest petitions, potentially impacting future legal proceedings in similar cases. The Court maintained the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s initial order taking cognizance against Gupteshwar Singh while setting aside the subsequent modification that included the appellants.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2023

RAMAKANT SINGH & ORS. VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.     

Latest Legal News