"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Merely claiming to be a journalist does not exonerate one from legal scrutiny: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash Charges Against Journalist and Newspaper Distributor

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Puneet Mishra alias Puneet Kumar Mishra and another individual seeking to quash the charges against them. The court upheld the validity of the chargesheet and cognizance order filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Shamim Ahmed, delivering the judgment, emphasized the necessity of adhering to legal processes and highlighted the potential misuse of journalistic credentials for illicit activities.

The applicants, Puneet Mishra and another, were implicated in Case Crime No. 499/2023 under Sections 384 (extortion), 352 (assault), 504 (intentional insult), 505 (public mischief) IPC, and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. The charges stemmed from allegations of blackmailing and defamation using their positions as a journalist and newspaper distributor. The FIR was filed after a 15-day delay, raising questions about the integrity of the investigation. The applicants sought to quash the chargesheet and cognizance order issued by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hardoi.

The court scrutinized the chargesheet and cognizance order and found them to be legally sound. Justice Ahmed noted, "From the perusal of the chargesheet and cognizance order, prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out." The court dismissed the applicants' claims of innocence and the assertion that the FIR was a retaliatory action due to their journalistic activities.

A significant aspect of the court's observation was the alleged misuse of journalistic credentials. The court expressed concern over the potential for journalists to engage in blackmail under the guise of legitimate reporting. "There is a gang operating in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, who in the name of journalism, is involved in anti-social activities like blackmailing common man for financial benefits," the court observed. This was particularly pertinent as the applicants failed to provide any valid documentation confirming their official status as journalists.

The judgment referenced multiple Supreme Court rulings, including R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, to underscore the principles guiding the quashing of chargesheets. Justice Ahmed emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a clear abuse of the legal process. The court found no such abuse in this case, asserting that the legal procedures had been appropriately followed.

Justice Ahmed remarked, "The impugned summoning order as well as the chargesheet and the cognizance order filed against the applicants are perfectly just and legal. Prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants under the Sections of I.P.C. as well as under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989."

The dismissal of the petition by the Allahabad High Court underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that legal processes are upheld and not circumvented under the guise of professional credentials. The ruling sends a clear message about the misuse of journalistic status for personal gain and reinforces the importance of credible and lawful conduct. This decision is likely to have a substantial impact on similar cases, promoting integrity within the field of journalism and adherence to legal norms.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2024

Puneet Mishra Alias Puneet Kumar Mishra And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Similar News