A Drafting Error Cannot Override Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan High Court Directs Correction In Udaipur Master Plan–2031 To Uphold Property Rights Uttering That a Woman Is a Prostitute in Public Can Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Bombay High Court Declines to Quash FIR Under Section 306 IPC PMLA | Stay on Predicate Offence Eclipses Money Laundering Probe; NBWs Cancelled for Cooperating Accused: Allahabad High Court Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus Not Applicable in Criminal Law: Patna High Court Mere Loan Default Doesn’t Justify Look Out Circular Without Criminality: Delhi High Court Rejects Bank of Baroda’s Appeal Consent, Not Calendar, Governs Divorce by Mutual Consent: Delhi High Court Says Separation and Cooling-Off Periods Under Hindu Marriage Act Can Be Waived Termination Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Gauhati High Court Quashes Railway Contract Rescission Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Override Statutory Bar Of NDPS Act: J&K High Court Denies Bail For Commercial Drug Offence Despite 3.5 Years Custody Inheritance Isn’t Lost in Whispered Settlements: Kerala High Court Says Oral Family Claims Can’t Defeat Sisters’ Equal Share Suit Barred by Law Must Be Dismissed at Threshold – No Evidence Needed When Limitation is Clear from the Plaint Itself: Madhya Pradesh High Court Admission That Plaintiff’s Gate Opens onto Disputed Land Clinches Case — No Ownership Proven, Common Passage Must Be Preserved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Axis Bank Must Refund ₹8.20 Crores Withdrawn in Violation of Trial Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Reasserts Judicial Supremacy Permissive Possession Is Not Adverse Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Ownership Claim Over Agricultural Land Registered Sale Deeds Carry Presumption of Ownership; Benami Plea Unsustainable Without Cogent Proof: Madras High Court Grants Partition Eligibility Criteria Must Have Rational Nexus With Objective: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹9 Crore Turnover Requirement In Hospital Diet Tender Mere Multiplicity of Ailments Is Not Ground for Bail Under UAPA: J&K High Court Dismisses Medical Bail Plea of Mian Abdul Qayoom Executing Court Cannot Direct Third Parties to Enforce Arbitral Orders Beyond Their Legal Limits: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CoA Order Against Jamia Hamdard Administrative Officer Can’t Question Validity of Registered Adoption Deed: Allahabad High Court Quashes Rejection of Compassionate Appointment Delay of Over Two Months in Eyewitness Disclosure is Inexplicable and Erodes the Core of the Prosecution’s Case: Bombay High Court Acquits Two Men Convicted of Murder Litigants Must Not Suffer for Clerical Errors Committed by the Court: Bombay High Court Allows Delayed Defence in Sibling Defamation Suit

“Supreme Court Quashes ‘Highly Erroneous’ Orders of Allahabad High Court, Directs CJM to Proceed with the Complaint Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark decision, set aside the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of ZUNAID versus State of U.P. & Others. The apex court termed the High Court’s judgments as “highly erroneous” and directed the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law.

The case originated from a conflict between the appellant, ZUNAID, and the respondents-accused. The High Court had previously set aside orders dated 15.11.2018 and 11.01.2022 passed by the CJM, a move now reversed by the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed, “In our opinion, the High Court has committed gross error in setting aside the orders dated 15.11.2018 and 11.01.2022 passed by the CJM.”

The appellant had originally lodged an FIR against the respondents for an attack on him and his family due to old enmity. The High Court’s decision to allow the amendment in the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had been challenged by the appellant in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court further clarified the discretionary powers of the CJM, stating, “The discretionary order of 11.01.2022 passed by the concerned CJM issuing summons to the accused, after recording statements of the complainant and the eight witnesses and after recording prima facie satisfaction about the commission of the alleged crime, also did not warrant any interference by the High Court.”

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has once again emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the need for lower courts to proceed in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: September 1, 2023

ZUNAID  vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.    

Latest Legal News