Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“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