MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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