Latest news with #RamlalYadav
The Hindu
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad High Court refers matter to nine-judge Bench
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge Bench legal questions concerning the High Court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A seven-judge Bench held in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and others (1989) that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 of the CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution. The single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge Bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge Bench invoking the spirit of "judicial discipline" and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis, a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided", is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to precedent. The court found the seven-judge Bench ruling "obsolete" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021). "This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full Bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. "Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges," Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in the Ramlal Yadav case, which had not been explicitly reversed or overruled but had become "obsolete", was rendered by a Bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS (inherent powers of high court) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (Section 156 (3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under sections 498A (harassment), 323, 504, 506, 342 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the High Court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge Bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, not only in cases where the FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgement in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat (2025), wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.
The Print
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
The single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench invoking the spirit of 'judicial discipline' and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others (1989) had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution. Prayagraj, May 28 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge bench legal questions concerning the high court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found the seven-judge bench ruling 'obsolete' in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021). 'This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. 'Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges,' Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in Ramlal Yadav, which though not explicitly reversed or overruled but had become 'obsolete', was rendered by a bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS (inherent powers of high court) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under section 175(3) of BNSS (Section 156 (3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under section 498A (harassment), 323, 504, 506, 342 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the high court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under section 482 CrPC, the high court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat (2025), wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under section 482 of CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage. PTI COR RAJ KVK KVK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Deccan Herald
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others (1989) had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge bench legal questions concerning the high court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code , which is now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution. The single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench invoking the spirit of "judicial discipline" and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. The court found the seven-judge bench ruling "obsolete" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others . "This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision of Ramlal Yadav may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. "Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges," Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in Ramlal Yadav, which though not explicitly reversed or overruled but had become "obsolete", was rendered by a bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under section 175 of BNSS CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under section 498A , 323, 504, 506, 342 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the high court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under section 482 CrPC, the high court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat , wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under section 482 of CrPC , merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Can HC quash an FIR?9-judge bench to decide
Prayagraj: In a rare order, Allahabad high court has referred to a nine-judge bench two key questions concerning the HC's power to quash an FIR and the ensuing investigation using its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to CrPC Sec 482). Senior advocate Satish Trivedi told TOI that the last time a nine-judge bench was constituted in the Allahabad HC was 55 years ago — in 1970 in the Rishikesh Singh case. The largest bench ever constituted in any Indian court was in 1964, when a 28-judge bench of the Allahabad HC sat down to decide on the then UP assembly Speaker's order to arrest two high court judges. In the present case, a single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal on May 27, while disagreeing with a seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench. The bench invoked the spirit of "judicial discipline" and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis (to stand by things decided, or legal precedents).A seven-judge Allahabad HC bench had in Ram Lal Yadav and Others vs State of UP and Others (a 1989 case) had held that for quashing an FIR, a plea under CrPC Sec 482 would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution of India. Justice Deshwal found the ruling "obsolete" in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Haryana & Others vs Bhajan Lal & Others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021). "This court respectfully acknowledges that the legal principles established in the full bench decision in the Ramlal Yadav case may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the apex court. Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges," the bench noted. The court added this referral was necessary as the judgment in Ramlal Yadav — which though not explicitly reversed or overruled, but had become obsolete — was rendered by a seven-judge bench. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under BNSS Sec 528 (inherent powers of HC) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, u/s 175(3) of BNSS (Sec 156(3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under various sections of the IPC read with sections of the Delhi Police Act. The largest HC bench ever to hear a case In the 1964 incident, the UP assembly Speaker ordered the arrest of two Allahabad high court judges — Justice GD Sahgal and Justice NU Beg. The action came in response to the judges' decision to grant bail to Socialist Party worker Keshav Singh, who had been arrested and detained by the assembly for contempt. The assembly then sought to have the judges produced in custody. A 28-judge bench of the Allahabad HC quashed the assembly's resolution. This was the largest number of judges allocated to decide a case in a high court or the Supreme Court at the time. The Supreme Court ultimately intervened, upholding the HC's jurisdiction to address the matter and quashing the assembly's resolution.
