Latest news with #Section482CrPC
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
‘Scandalous, Contemptuous': Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Accusing Trial Judge Of Bribery
Last Updated: The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the allegations were not only false and vague but also appeared to be a calculated attempt to delay judicial proceedings. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) recently dismissed a plea by former LACFEDD Managing Director Brahma Prakash Singh seeking transfer of a money laundering trial on allegations that the special judge demanded a Rs 1 crore bribe for his acquittal. The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the allegations were not only false and vague but also appeared to be a calculated attempt to delay judicial proceedings. Singh, who is facing trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) based on a 2018 Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint, had approached the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the sessions court's refusal to transfer the case. Court noted that Singh had been convicted earlier in a corruption case and was currently out on bail during the pendency of his appeal. The bribery allegation against the special judge surfaced for the first time in December 2024—nearly three months after the alleged demand was made in court, and notably after the trial court had passed multiple orders against him. 'Apparently, the transfer application has been devised to avoid facing trial before the court," the high court observed. The sessions judge, who earlier rejected Singh's transfer request, had sought comments from the trial judge. The latter outright denied the bribery allegations, stating that no such interaction could have occurred without the presence of court staff and prosecutors. He also accused Singh and his counsel of trying to mount pressure on the court and disrupt proceedings. Singh's counsel, who admitted to receiving the alleged bribe demand by the special judge, told the high court that he delayed reporting it to avoid conflict with a judicial officer. However, the high court found this explanation implausible and inconsistent with conduct expected from a legal professional. What drew even sharper judicial rebuke were Singh's allegations against a sitting high court judge. The transfer application claimed that Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan had deliberately refused to pass an interim order in a Section 482 CrPC plea, even though the petition had merit. Justice Vidyarthi termed these claims 'scandalous and contemptuous," reiterating the Supreme Court's precedent that statements recorded in judicial orders cannot be questioned by extraneous evidence. 'I find myself in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned sessions judge," the bench held, adding that Singh's writ petition lacked merit and deserved outright dismissal.
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.
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC allows HCs to quash cases under Domestic Violence Act
The Supreme Court on Monday paved the way for high courts to quash criminal proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, observing that though the law is predominantly of civil nature meant to secure married women against harassment and violence, serious consequences affecting liberty of individuals follow when a person is arrested and sentenced under the law. 'We hold that high courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the court of the Magistrate,' a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said. The bench, however, clarified that this power available to high courts should be exercised with 'caution' and 'circumspection' warranted only in the case of preventing gross illegality or injustice. 'Setting criminal law in motion has very serious consequences affecting the liberty of a human being, as the person against whom criminal law is set in motion can be arrested and sentenced to undergo imprisonment,' the bench said. The court order came in an appeal filed by a family in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh challenging the registration of a case under the DV Act against the husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law of a woman, who filed a complaint against them in 2022. The aggrieved persons had approached the Madhya Pradesh high court bench at Indore, which refused to quash the case on May 9, 2024, citing the established law that does not permit exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in cases under DV Act. The top court directed the petition to be restored before the MP high court to be decided afresh. Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, referred to the fact that while sitting in the Bombay high court he had decided a case in October 2016 holding that Section 482 is not maintainable in a case under section 12(1) of DV Act. The decision, however, was later overturned by a full bench of the high court. 'As judges, we are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly constituted proceedings. Even for judges, the learning process always continues,' justice Oka said. The top court also cautioned that this power is to be exercised sparingly as otherwise it may defeat the very purpose of the legislation. It said: 'The high court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence...'
