officer of the court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs

27Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs

The Supreme Court held that for withdrawing prosecution against sitting or former MPs/MLAs, the State must seek the High Court's permission under the mandate of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The Public Prosecutor must disclose all reasons for seeking withdrawal, enabling the High Court to apply its judicial mind and pass a reasoned order. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar, was the subject of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in June 2007 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli. These included Case Crime No. 656/07 and others under Sections 25, 27, 30 of the Arms Act, as well as Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code concerning an arms license. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate,...

Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent convictions, holding that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC vitiates a fair trial. The trial court's failure to put each material circumstance individually to the appellants caused prejudice. The Court remanded the matter for de novo examination from the stage of recording Section 313 statements, emphasizing this mandatory procedural requirement. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on March 31, 2016, when the informant, Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi, and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi, were returning from their fields. They were allegedly surrounded by several accused persons, including the three appellants before the Supreme Court—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi. The accu...

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case, Emphasizes Lawyers’ Responsibility as “Officers of the Court”

In this suo moto contempt proceeding, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing trend of lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges in pleadings. Reaffirming that an advocate's overriding duty is to the court as its officer, the Court cautioned that subscribing to such pleadings amounts to contempt. However, accepting the unconditional apology tendered before the concerned High Court Judge, it closed the proceedings. Facts Of The Case: In a criminal transfer petition (TP(Crl.) No. 613 of 2025) filed before the Supreme Court, the pleadings contained scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting Judge of the Telangana High Court. When the bench expressed its displeasure, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition. The Court, however, refused permis...