Latest news with #StateofUP
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.
News18
15-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
‘Affair Not Misconduct': Allahabad High Court Stays Suspension Of Police Officer
Last Updated: The high court found prima facie merit in Mohammad Mohsin Khan's contention and stayed the suspension order until further directions The Allahabad High Court has stayed the suspension of a police officer accused of being in a relationship with another woman despite being married. The bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, passing the order on May 9, stayed the suspension of Mohammad Mohsin Khan, a government servant, which was issued on the basis of allegations that he was in a sexual relationship with another woman. The order came in response to Khan's petition challenging the legality of his suspension. The petitioner contended that the state government acted mechanically while suspending him, relying solely on the recommendation made by the additional director general (ADG) of police on March 6, 2025. He highlighted the absence of any independent satisfaction or reasoning recorded by the disciplinary authority before issuing the suspension order. Khan's counsel further argued that while Rule 29(1) of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, deems entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first as misconduct, merely maintaining a relationship with another woman without formalising it into a second marriage does not violate service rules. The suspension, according to the petitioner, was also linked to an FIR lodged against him under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on allegations of adultery or related misconduct. Khan has already challenged the FIR before the high court, which granted him interim protection from the filing of a chargesheet in December 2024. The court took into account previous judicial precedents, including the division bench ruling in VN Daipuria vs State of UP and Shahjahan Khan vs State of UP, both of which clarified the threshold for defining 'misconduct" in personal relationships of public servants. On these grounds, the high court found prima facie merit in Khan's contention and stayed the suspension order until further directions. The state government has been asked to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks, and the case is next listed for hearing on July 28, 2025. First Published: May 15, 2025, 07:24 IST
Hindustan Times
06-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Court orders FIR against three over property grab bid
The court of judicial magistrate Karun Kumar ordered the immediate registration of an FIR against three accused of criminal trespass and forgery in an alleged attempt to seize property belonging to Dr Sumeet Sofat, a city-based doctor and long-time resident of Hira Road. Dr Sofat had moved the seeking directions to the SHO of Sadar police station to act on his complaint dated January 15. Despite presenting detailed allegations and documents to the police, the FIR had not been registered. The court took serious note of the complaint, which accused Harwinder Singh alias Nihang of Village Sayiyan Kalan of Ludhiana, Balkirat Singh of Noorwala Road, and Vassu Madan of Satjot Nagar, Dhandran Road of criminally trespassing on Dr Sofat's 3,000-sq-yard property in Sunet village. It was alleged that on February 14 the accused broke the locks, damaged boundary walls, and illegally occupied the premises. Further, Dr Sofat claimed that forged rent deeds were created to falsely show tenancy, enabling the fraudulent takeover. The court order stated that even after preliminary inquiry by police officers confirmed a cognisable offence had occurred, no FIR was registered. 'This is shocking,' remarked Judicial Magistrate Karun Kumar, referencing the Lalita Kumari vs State of UP judgment which mandates police to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognisable offence. The court further observed that the accused were not only repeat offenders—some already declared proclaimed offenders in earlier related cases—but also appeared to have forged documents to dispossess the complainant. 'The conduct of accused Harwinder Singh, who had previously attempted to seize the same property, now again executing a forged rent deed, shows a clear fraudulent and dishonest intention,' the court noted. Consequently, the court directed the SHO of Sadar police station to register an FIR under Sections 329, 336, and 3(5) of the BNS against the accused, and under additional sections against others involved. The investigating officer has also been given liberty to add or drop charges based on evidence during investigation. The court has asked for a compliance report along with a copy of the FIR at the next hearing.
