Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

Latest Legal News