news details |
|
|
| HC directs TC to proceed against petitioner u/s 212 RPC instead u/s 124-A RPC | | | Early Times report
Jammu, Apr 1: Justice JP Singh of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in a petition filed by Zabir Ahmed seeking quashment of proceedings and charges framed against petition u/s 124-A and 212 RPC, quashed the charge framed against the petitioner u/s 124-A RPC and directed trial Court to proceed with the case treating the charge against the petitioner u/s 212 RPC.
According to the investigation of the case carried out in FIR registered at P/S Bus Stand Jammu found the petitioner involved in a commission offences punishable u/s 124-A & 212 RPC. Final police report with the permission of District Magistrate Jammu was laid against the petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, the Trial Court finding a prima-facie case, charged the petitioner u/s 124-A & 212 RPC, for having incited the members of Muslim Community against the Govt of India and State of Jammu & Kashmir, besides for harbouring and providing logistic support to the militants in General and Dawood the area commander of Jash-e-Mohd who was engaged in war against India in particular, sabotaging the piece of stability of the country. Advocate H A Siddiqui appearing for the petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings and the charge framed against the petitioner saying that the Trial Court had error in taking cognizance of the offences in the absence of requisite complaint by the District Magistrate and referred judgment of the J&K High Court.
Justice JP Singh after hearing both the sides observed that one of the offences for which the petitioner has been charged is sedition punishable u/s 124-A RPC falling in chapter VI of the RPC. In terms of code of criminal procedure no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under chapter VI & IX-A of RPC and under sections of the RPC appearing in this section unless upon a complaint made by the order of or under authority from the Govt or District Magistrate or such other officer has may be empowered by the Govt in this behalf.
Court further observed that District Magistrate having not authorized anyone to file complaint and the prosecution having been initiated on the basis of final report (challan) and not on a complaint u/s 196 of Code of Criminal Procedure, may not thus be satisfied and the AAG Gagan Basotra appearing for the State rightly concedes the legal position in view of the law laid down by the J&K High Court in the judgment referred by the counsel for the petitioner. The Trial Court lacking jurisdiction in taking cognizance u/s 124-A RPC against the petitioner, in the absence of requisite complaint, would not however affect the cognizance taken by the Trial Court in proceeding against the petitioner for the commission of offence u/s 212 RPC. With these observations Court quashed the charged framed against the petitioner u/s 124-A RPC and the trial magistrate freed to proceed with the case u/s 212 RPC. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
