Can I get the Access of e-filling as a defendant without appearing in

717 votes

केवल समझौता हो जाने से पुलिस स्वतः जांच बंद करने के लिए बाध्य नहीं होती, विशेषकर यदि आरोप गैर-समझौतायोग्य (non-compoundable) अपराधों के हों। किंतु यदि हाई कोर्ट का स्पष्ट स्थगन/रोक आदेश मौजूद था, तो चार्जशीट की वैधता को चुनौती देने का मजबूत आधार बनता है। सटीक राय के लिए हाई कोर्ट का अंतरिम आदेश, एफआईआर और चार्जशीट की प्रतियां देखना आवश्यक होगा।

Advocate Servesh Mishra LawRato

935 votes

In the given circumstances, the filing of a charge sheet by the police, despite a written compromise between the parties and an interim order of the High Court restraining submission of the police report/charge sheet, would prima facie appear legally unsustainable unless the restraint order had subsequently been vacated, modified, or had ceased to operate. Under Section 173 CrPC (now Section 193 BNSS), the Investigating Officer is ordinarily bound to complete the investigation and submit a final report; however, such statutory power remains subject to the supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). Once the High Court specifically directs that no charge sheet shall be filed pending further proceedings, the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to comply with that order. Any action taken in violation thereof may amount to disobedience of a judicial order and could be liable to be ignored or set aside by the Court. The compromise itself may not automatically terminate the investigation, particularly where the alleged offences are non-compoundable, as held by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; however, until the High Court decides the effect of such compromise and vacates its interim protection, the police cannot ordinarily bypass the Court’s express direction. Therefore, unless there existed a subsequent judicial order permitting the filing of the charge sheet or the interim order had lapsed, the police action would be open to challenge before the High Court as being contrary to the subsisting judicial mandate.

Advocate Lalit Saxena LawRato

689 votes

Based on the facts stated, if the High Court had specifically directed that no police report/charge sheet be filed pending further proceedings, the filing of a charge sheet despite such an interim order may require judicial scrutiny. The effect of the compromise and the exact wording of the High Court's order are crucial. If the charge sheet has been filed in apparent violation of the interim protection granted by the High Court, appropriate legal remedies may be available, including bringing the subsequent developments to the notice of the Court. A detailed examination of the FIR, compromise deed, High Court order, and charge sheet would be necessary before offering a conclusive opinion.

Advocate Rahul Kumar LawRato

910 votes

Your matter raises a serious procedural issue and should not be treated as a routine challenge to the charge sheet. If the parties had already executed a written compromise and the High Court had specifically directed that no police report/charge sheet be filed until further orders, then filing a charge sheet thereafter may amount to a direct violation of the High Court's interim protection. However, before reaching that conclusion, it is necessary to examine: • The exact wording of the High Court order. • Whether the order was communicated to the Investigating Officer and prosecution. • The date of the interim order vis-à-vis the date of filing of the charge sheet. • Whether the charge sheet was actually filed after the order or had already been prepared earlier. If the charge sheet was filed after the interim order came into force and the authorities had knowledge of that order, then there may be grounds to argue: • Wilful disobedience of the High Court's direction. • Abuse of the process of law. • Illegality in the continuation of proceedings. • Grounds for quashing of the charge sheet and consequential proceedings. to learn check the WhatsApp.

Advocate Vaibhav Sangam Mishra LawRato

959 votes

fchgii0dii s s s s s s s. s ss. s s s ss. s s s s s s s s s s s s d d d d d d d d d d. d d d d d d d d d d d s s s s s s s s s s d s. s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s. s s s s s s s s s s s s s. s s s

Advocate Ajeet Kumar Gupta LawRato