Amidst the environs of Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh, the pronouncement from the esteemed chambers of the Allahabad High Court resonated profoundly. It delineated that without the imprimatur of the Magistrate, the constabulary is bereft of the authority to probe into infractions deemed non-cognisable.
The august presence of Justice Shamim Ahmed presided over a matter brought forth, challenging the validity of proceedings in a legal imbroglio ensnared within the labyrinthine fabric of statutes, specifically Sections 171 H and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The former, pertaining to pecuniary improprieties entwined with electoral processes, and the latter, denoting acts of defiance that portend peril to human life.
In eloquent argumentation, Advocate Chandan Srivastava, standing as the petitioner’s proxy, vociferously contended against the admissibility of allegations leveled against his client, Rashid Khan. The contention crystallized around the electoral foray embarked upon by Khan during the municipal elections of 2017, wherein he vied for ascendancy from the Sardar Bhagat Singh Ward of Ayodhya. The genesis of the legal maelstrom stemmed from the asseveration that Khan’s visage adorned an obelisk of electric provenance, an act deemed transgressive by the local constabulary.
Subsequent to a meticulous inquiry, the mantle of accusation was draped upon Khan’s shoulders, under the aegis of Sections 171 H and 188 of the IPC. However, a legal stratagem unfurled, weaving through the labyrinth of procedural codices. Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was invoked, its elegantly articulated precepts stipulating the indispensability of a plaint from an aggrieved public functionary prior to the invocation of judicial cognisance. It was cogently argued that Section 188, with its cognisable essence, could be the pivot upon which the legal fulcrum could pivot, whereas Section 171 H, by virtue of its non-cognisable character, ought not to encumber the electoral aspirations of any candidate.
The discerning gaze of the High Court sifted through the voluminous dossier comprising the First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent charge sheet, discerning therein a paucity of imputation that could incontrovertibly implicate the accused. Thus, the court opined, with scholarly sagacity, that the jurisdictional ambit of the constabulary should not conflue two divergent streams of inquiry, one cognisable and the other non-cognisable.