Legally Aware

The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 at Allahabad High Court to quash an FIR on the ground that the respondent’s application under S.156 (3) CrPC (now, 173(4) BNSS) had already been rejected by Add. CJM and further registration of FIR on substantially same allegations would cause burden of double proceedings. But the Court dismissed his petition. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant reached the SC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court, relying on its judgment in Mahendri and Ors. V. State of U.P. & Anr. (2015). The Court held that an order passed under S.156(3) of the CrPC is confined to directing, or disclosing to direct the exercise of the statutory power of investigation under chapter XII of the Code. Such an order neither entails an adjudication on the merits of the allegation nor determines any right or liability of the proposed accused. The rejection of an application of 156(3) cannot be accorded such finality as would attra...

"It is sometimes said that in a trial the parties already know the truth, and that it is the Judge who is on trial.  The machinery of justice is not a facility to settle scores to salvage reputations they have themselves imperiled or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making.", observed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath. The appellant has raised to the Bar Council, that the respondent has performed professional misconduct under S.35 of Advocates Act 1961. She alleged that the Additional Commissioner of Police had tried to sexually assault her. Then, the appellant engaged the respondent as her counsel in 2013. A notice has been issued without her consent by the respondent, while the respondent counter-claimed that he have received her oral consent. The appellant alleged that respondent was entrusted with confidential information and instead of acting in her interest, acted against it. He gave interview to press, publicly characterized her complaint as fa...