Back
SHAMIM AHMED
Ishrat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ankita Tripahti, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. As per Office report dated 21.02.2024 notice has been served personally on opposite party No.2, but till date neither anyone has put in appearance nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned Summoning Order dated 05.1.2022 issued against the applicant by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao, and also to quash entire proceedings of the Case No. 1834/2022, (State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Chhote Lal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171-E, 269 and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and 125 of The Representation of People Act,1951 (herein after referred to as "Act,1951), registered at Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, pending before Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant/opposite party no. 02, Ram Awtar has lodged an F.I.R. dated 25.04.2021 bearing Case Crime N
The High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 125 of the Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC due to insufficient evidence for promoting enmity or intentionally provoking a breach of peace.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the court at the stage of issuing process and the emphasis on prima facie evidence to establish liability.
The necessity of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a critical procedural requirement, and failure to comply renders the prosecu....
(1) If a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of offence alleged against accused, Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.(2) Cognizance of offence – Magistrate can ignore conclusion ....
The trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.
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
