Justice Mahadevan - 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 Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It mandated accessible prison infrastructure, reasonable accommodations, and healthcare for disabled inmates, while emphasizing state accountability under UNCRPD obligations. The Court also reinforced compensation for rights violations and directed systemic reforms, including training for prison staff and periodic audits to ensure compliance with disability-inclusive standards. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy (80% disability) and autism, was falsely implicated in a criminal case at the behest of his paternal uncle. Based on a fa...

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which mandates lawyers to inform the court about a party's death, prevents the opposing side from claiming abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court emphasized that no party can benefit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria). It clarified that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration, highlighting the distinction between joint and indivisible decrees in abatement cases. The judgment reinforces the duty of pleaders to ensure fair litigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed by the appellants (Binod Pathak & others) before the Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, ...