LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


In the recent case, Satish Kumar Jatav vs the State of UP, the Hon’ble SC observed that it was cryptic and unreasoned to quash a criminal proceeding merely because no useful purpose would be served to prolong the proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offense.

The accused had to face trial for offenses punishable u/s 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 3(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Being aggrieved by the Magistrate's order, the original accused approached the High Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Application and prayed to quash the criminal proceeding u/s 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the judgment in one unreasoned paragraph.Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the Apex Court.

The Hon’ble SC held that the judgment passed by the High Court was unsustainable both in law as well as on facts. It condemned the manner in which the High Court had disposed of the application u/s 482 CrPC and quashed the proceeding when serious allegations for the offenses u/s 307,504,506 IPC and section 3(10)(15) of the Act were made.

The Court allowed the present petition and order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused was restored.

"Loved reading this piece by Anushka Naugain?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  30  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query