Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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