HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, declined to interfere with the Special Court's order taking cognizance. Relying on settled law that cognizance is of the offence and not the offender, and that interference with cognizance orders is permissible only if they are perverse or unsupported by material, HC held that the Special Court had duly applied its mind to the complaint, police report and accompanying material. The impugned order disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and summon the accused, and contained no illegality, infirmity or perversity. Consequently, the petition challenging the cognizance order was dismissed and the proceedings before the Special Court were permitted to continue.
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, declined to interfere with the Special Court's order taking cognizance. Relying on settled law that cognizance is of the offence and not the offender, and that interference with cognizance orders is permissible only if they are perverse or unsupported by material, HC held that the Special Court had duly applied its mind to the complaint, police report and accompanying material. The impugned order disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and summon the accused, and contained no illegality, infirmity or perversity. Consequently, the petition challenging the cognizance order was dismissed and the proceedings before the Special Court were permitted to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
