Back
YOGESH KHANNA
Aroon Purie – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
Crl. M.A. No. 12577/2020 and 12579/2020 in Crl. M.C. No. 3492/2013
1. This petition is filed challenging the summoning order dated 20.04.2013 as well as quashing of the complaint bearing No. 584/1/10. The petitioner has also filed an application for amendment dated 08.09.2020 challenging the order dated 26.02.2020 whereby the Court directed to issue notice against the petitioner for the offences under Section 500/501/502 read with Section 120B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are India Today magazine in its edition dated 30.04.2007 had published a news item under the title Mission Misconduct.
3. The news item asserts allegations of soliciting sexual favour leading to a probe which revealed financial irregularities and fudging of bills. Consequently, the official is back in India and is facing disciplinary action.
4. It is argued in relation to the financial irregularities and fudging of bills, disciplinary action had taken place and vide order dated 19.02.2009, the respondent No. 2/complainant was found guilty and 20% cut in his pension was ordered. This was challenged by complainant by an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal which had upheld the
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The descriptions focus on the legal principles established or clarified in each case but do not mention subsequent judicial treatment that would suggest these cases have been discredited or overruled. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.
[Followed / Clarified Principles]
Mohammed Abdulla Khan VS Prakash K. - 2018 1 Supreme 86: This case discusses liability for offences under Sections 501 or 502 and the issue of vicarious liability of a newspaper owner. It appears to establish or clarify principles regarding liability and the sufficiency of evidence, but there is no indication it has been overruled or criticized subsequently.
Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371: Clarifies the powers of a Magistrate under section 204 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the Magistrate cannot recall process once issued. This seems to be a statement of procedural law without indication of subsequent treatment.
S. R. SUKUMAR VS S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM - 2015 5 Supreme 695: Explains the scope of amendments permissible to correct curable infirmities, likely a procedural principle that remains valid.
State Of Maharashtra VS R. B. Chowdhari - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 149: Clarifies that presumption of editorship under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act applies only against the person printed as the Editor, not against the entire Editorial Board. No indication of subsequent criticism or overruling.
Inspector of Police VS Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 346: States that acts like cheating or misappropriation are not in discharge of official duty, and Section 197 Cr.P.C. will not apply. This appears to be a settled principle.
Amit Sibal VS Arvind Kejriwal - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 1346: Discusses the authority of the High Court to permit raising pleas at the stage of framing of notice, which seems procedural and uncontroversial.
Mathew VS Abraham - 2002 0 Supreme(Ker) 517: States that the presumption under S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act is rebuttable and that responsibility can lie with others, clarifying legal presumptions without indication of being overruled or criticized.
All cases appear to be straightforward statements of legal principles or procedural clarifications without mention of subsequent judicial treatment. As such, their treatment status is not indicated as overruled, criticized, or otherwise. The absence of references to later treatment makes it difficult to categorize any as uncertain or ambiguous.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
