Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Kirti Nath Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Govt. of India, Assi. Dir. (PMLA) Somnath Choudhary Allahabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. valid summons and trial initiation (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. non-cooperation affects discretionary relief (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. credibility of evidence in the application (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. judicial discretion regarding quashing proceedings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. inherent powers should not be arbitrarily exercised (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. definition of guilt in money laundering (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. lack of grounds to interfere with trial court's order (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. application rejected on merits (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Heard Sri S. P. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , the applicant has challenged validity of the summoning / cognizance order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Complaint No. 02/2018. The case has subsequently been transferred to the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I. - 6, Lucknow and the applicant has approached this Court when the trial Court has passed an order dated 19.04.2023 issuing non-baila
The court emphasized that allegations lacking evidence do not justify the summoning of accused, highlighting the necessity of due diligence by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Points of law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see....
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
The court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the power of quashing should be exercised only in the 'rarest of rare cases'. The c....
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
A second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if based on changed circumstances, despite a previous application being withdrawn.
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
