Back
E. V. VENUGOPAL
Mohd. Asifuddin, Baba Jani – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Muddu Vijay, learned senior counsel appearing for Aequitasjuris Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the third respondent in both the writ petitions and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions are seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 668 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, arising out of Cr. No. 632 of 2008 on the file of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. The facts, succinctly, are that the third respondent filed a complaint before the Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, against her husband - Dabeeruddin Khaja and also the petitioners in both the writ petitions for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was registered as a case in Cr. No. 632 of 2008. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance for the aforesaid
General and omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution under Section 498-A IPC without new evidence.
General and omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC.
There is no legal bar against further investigation. Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code does not restrict reopening of the case in which charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance ....
Investigating Officers retain the right to conduct further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheets without court permission, although seeking such permission is an established practice.
administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under the Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim.
The court confirmed that allegations under IPC Sections 498-A, 406, and 506, as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act, warrant trial, emphasizing that quashing of proceedings should be rare and evidence ....
The court affirmed that a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence based on sufficient evidence, even if earlier charge sheets contain irregularities, and emphasized the power to summon additiona....
Further investigation without prior court permission is valid under Section 173(8) of CrPC, and such investigation does not violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constit....
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
