Discharge - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Settles the Law: A Person Not Named in Police Report Can Still Be Summoned to Face Trial

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles the Law: A Person Not Named in Police Report Can Still Be Summoned to Face Trial

The Supreme Court held that under Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court is empowered to summon additional accused persons not named in the police report upon committal of a case, as cognizance is taken of the offence—not the offender—and such power is incidental to the court’s original jurisdiction post-committal. This does not amount to taking "fresh cognizance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Shivali, Kanpur Dehat, concerning the murder and rape of a woman. The initial investigation named one Ajay as the suspect. However, during the probe, the petitioner's name surfaced based on witness statements and an alleged extra-judicial confession. Despite this, the Crime Branch gave the petitioner a clean chit, and a chargesheet was filed solely agai...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and chargesheet, holding that while the complaint was within the limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC (relevant date for limitation being filing of complaint, not cognizance date), the allegations lacked specific incidents of cruelty and appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions. Facts Of The Case: The present appeal challenges a High Court order dated April 1, 2024, which set aside a Sessions Court order from October 4, 2008. The Sessions Court had discharged the Appellant from charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 1098/2002. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Complainant wife (Respondent no. 2) on July 3, 2002, leading to the FIR being registered on December 19, 2002, at PS Malviya Nagar...

Judicial Service Reinstatement: Supreme Court Rules Against “Minor Irregularity” Discharge

The Supreme Court overturned the discharge of a judicial probationer, holding that termination based on alleged misconduct (like simultaneous degrees or non-disclosure of past employment after resignation) without a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard is stigmatic and punitive, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that minor omissions after resignation are not grounds for discharge, especially when the probationer completed training successfully Facts Of The Case: Pinky Meena, holding multiple degrees including LL.B. and LL.M., was a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department from 2014. She applied for the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post following an advertisement on November 18, 2017. After selectio...