Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme 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