A NLIU Bhopal student, Hrishikesh Jaiswal, had filed this WP, in-person seeking effective implementation of the Motor Vehicle Rules in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others on 25 Oct 2021Notice issued
Tag: Petitioner In Person
How to fight legal case as Petitioner or Party in Person (PIP)
As per CrPC 302, a petitioner can request per permission of magistrate to conduct and lead the prosecution case, instead of a advocate. Read more here.
Similarly, per Advocates Act Section 32, any person who is not as advocate, can appear in a particular case. Read more here.
CrPC 302 – Permission to conduct prosecution
Permission to conduct prosecution.
(1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission: Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.
(2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.
R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab on 25 March, 1960
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down three categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash proceedings:
(i) where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint did not make out the offence alleged; and
(iii)where either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge.
Conclusion:
R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960It is not a case where the appellant can justly contend that on the face of the record the charge levelled against him is unsustainable.
Citation: [1960 AIR 862], [1960 SCR (3) 311], [(1960) 3 SCR 388], [1960 CRLJ SC 1239], [1960 CRILJ 239], [1961 AWR 31 49], [1960 AIR SC 866]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033301/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab10e4b014971140b8c1
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
