NOMINAL INDEX Kavita Gupta (Corpus) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 221 Dr. Ayub v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 222 Sushil Kumar And 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 223 Suresh Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy Deptt. Of Home 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 224 Jitendra Kumar v. Anil Kumar And Another 2022...
NOMINAL INDEX
Kavita Gupta (Corpus) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 221
Dr. Ayub v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 222
Sushil Kumar And 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 223
Suresh Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy Deptt. Of Home 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 224
Jitendra Kumar v. Anil Kumar And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 225
Sunil v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 226
Ram Vilas Thru. Daughter Sarojani And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 227
Phool Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and connected appeals 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 228
Rama Kant Dixit v. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 229
Irfan v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 230
Uphill Farms Private Limited v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 231
Abdul Kayyum v. Sri Neeraj Gutpa Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 232
Sunny Yadav And Another V. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 233
Jahur Hasan v. R.M. Srivastava Prin. Sec. Home Lko. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 234
Lavkush v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko. and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 235
Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 236
Dr Rajneesh Singh v Union of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 237
Akhilesh v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 238
Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman And Another v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 239
Gulam Sarvar v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 240
Prakash Chandra Agrawal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 241
Manvir v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 242
Preeti Malik v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 243
Anwar Ali v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 245
Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Ankita Dikshit v. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Ravi Kant v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 248
Jaywanti Devi v. Union of India and others and connected pleas 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 249
Smt. Krishna Devi v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 250
Sonu Kasai v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 251
Ramsagar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 252
Anwar Shahzad v. State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 253
Deepika Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 254
Ram Chandra v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Jyoti Sikka v. State Of U.P. Thru.Legal Remembrancer Dept. Of Law And Justice Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 256
Nawab v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 257
Chhunna v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 258
Siddharth Varadarajan And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 259
Mahendra Singh v. State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 260
Rajkaran Patel v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 261
Ram Khelawan And Another v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 262
Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 263
Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Rahul v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 265
Babu Khan v. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 266
Anamika Srivastava v. Anoop Srivastava 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 267
Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269
Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Case title - Kavita Gupta (Corpus) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 192 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 221
The Allahabad High Court directed the S.S.P., Varanasi to inquire into an allegation made by a girl, who had an intercaste marriage, that she was assaulted by UP Police personnel. The Court has also ordered that punitive action be taken against the police personnel if allegations are found to be true.
Importantly, expressing its resentment, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi called it an unacceptable situation and remarked that the police personnel, who are said to be protectors, had become attackers in this case.
Case Title - Dr. Ayub v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20301 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 222
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the National President of Peace Party, Dr. Ayub in a 2016 case registered against him for his alleged statement made at a public rally, threatening to kill the then Member Of Parliament from Gorakhpur and presently, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath.
The case against Dr. Ayub was registered at the instance of the President of Hindu Yuva Vahini Sangathan alleging that from a public platform, Dr. Ayub had abused the then MP Yogi Adityanath by saying that he was a terrorist and would kill him wherever he had been found and would capture the Gorakhnath Temple.
Case title - Sushil Kumar And 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1092 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 223
The High Court upheld an order of the Trial Court dismissing a discharge application filed by a man who has been accused of abetting wife's suicide. The wife had died by suicide allegedly on account of the fact that without divorcing her, her husband was going to marry another lady.
Stressing that an Indian lady can't share her husband at any cost, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed thus while dismissing the revision plea filed by the Husband:
"They (Indian wives) are literally possessive about their husband. It would be biggest jolt for any married woman that her husband is being shared by some other lady or he is going to marry some other lady. In such awkward situation, it would be impossible to expect any sanity from them. Exactly, same thing happen in this case too, where soon after coming to know that her husband got married in clandestine way with some other lady, by itself is more than sufficient reason to commit suicide."
Case title - Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy Deptt. Of Home
Case Title - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 224
The High Court observed that a heinous crime accused can not complain of the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India when he himself is not cooperating in the early conclusion of the trial.
Denying bail to Suresh Yadav, the prime accused in the 2019 Raebareli-Aditya Murder Case, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh further opined thus:
"When the accused are not cooperating in the trial and the accused-applicant is accused of heinous offence of a gruesome murder of a young man in a most dastardly manner, this Court does not find that it is fit case where the accused-applicant should be enlarged on bail."
Case title - Jitendra Kumar v. Anil Kumar And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 431 of 2000]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 225
The High Court (Lucknow Bench) has observed that where a civil suit for possession or declaration of the title in respect of the same property is pending, the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are liable to be discontinued.
The Bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar also ruled that a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC cannot withdraw the proceedings upon the application given by a party to it, rather, it can do so only after his subjective satisfaction.
Case title - Sunil v. State of U.P. and Another CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29765 of 2021
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 226
The High Court denied bail to a 62-year-old person accused of raping a 3-year-old girl as it noted that prima facie it was evident that the accused had committed an inhuman act of rape on a 3-year-old minor girl.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also noted that the 3-year-old victim girl had narrated her ordeal in words as well as in signs and had explained the entire incident of rape, allegedly committed by the accused.
Case title - Ram Vilas Thru. Daughter Sarojani And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 80 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 227
In a significant direction issued to the State of UP and its instrumentalities, the High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed that no person, including an accused can be summoned to a police station orally by subordinate police officials without the consent/approval of the station in-charge.
The Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Manish Mathur further directed the authorities thus:
"In case any application or complaint is given at any police station which requires investigation and presence of the accused then a suitable course of action as prescribed under provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are to be followed which contemplate a written notice being served upon such a person but that too only consequent to a case being registered."
The bench issued these directions while stressing that the life, liberty, and dignity of any person can not be thrown to the winds merely on verbal orders of police officials.
Case title - Phool Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and connected appeals
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 228
The High Court has clarified that the sentence of imprisonment of life is till the natural life of the accused which cannot be fixed in years by the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed thus while upholding the life sentence awarded to Five murder convicts by the Trial Court in a case that dates back to the year 1997.
Significantly, when it was argued that one of the convicts, Kallu, who has already served about 20-21 years in jail, be released after commuting his sentence for life imprisonment to the period undergone by him, the Court clarified that it is not permissible for the Court to fix the period of life sentence to certain years, in as much as, the legal position is that the period of life sentence is the natural life of a person.
Case Title - Rama Kant Dixit v. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions And Another [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 201 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 229
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to upgrade the overall working condition, pay structure, support staff, incentive, etc of CBI Prosecution Cadre.
The plea has been moved by one Rama Kant Dixit over the alleged discrimination being meted out to the officers of a particular cadre in the CBI, such as Assistant Public Prosecutors, Public Prosecutors, and Senior Public Prosecutors.
Case title - Irfan v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 12350 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 230
The High Court has observed that the law has now been settled that the use of loudspeakers from mosques is not a fundamental right. The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar said this while dealing with a writ plea filed by one Irfan.
Essentially, Irfan had moved to the High Court feeling aggrieved by an order passed by SDM Tehsil Bisauli, District Budaun rejecting his application seeking permission for playing loudspeaker/mike in a village Mosque at the time of azan.
Case Title: Uphill Farms Private Limited Versus UOI
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 231
The High Court bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji ruled that once the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the assessing authority was declared without jurisdiction, the subsequent proceedings, including the re-assessment order, cannot be sustained.
The petitioner/assessee submitted an objection to the "reason to believe" recorded by the assessing authority. In his objection, the petitioner has specifically stated that he has not entered into any transaction amounting to Rs. 45 lakhs during the year under consideration, which has been made the basis for recording the "reason to believe" and issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has also produced documentary evidence to show that no transaction of Rs. 45 lakhs, as alleged, was entered into by the petitioner.
Case title - Abdul Kayyum v. Sri Neeraj Gutpa Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5942 of 2014]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 232
The High Court dismissed a contempt plea filed against the State Government for its failure to confine the use of loudspeakers in Temples and Mosques within the permissible limit of decibels across the State.
Noting that the plea had not referred to any mosque or temple which was using microphones beyond the permissible limit of decibels, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava dismissed the plea, initially with 25K Cost, however, the order regarding the imposition of the cost was, later on, withdrawn by the Court.
Case title - Sunny Yadav And Another V. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 233
The High Court recently imposed Rs. 50K cost on a revisionist/accused of attempting to extract favorable orders by adopting foul means. The Court termed such 'malpractices' as back-stabbing the solemn Court proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi further observed that the law courts should be beware of such types of unscrupulous and unethical litigants and their advising counsels and that they should be handled with iron hands by imposing exemplary costs upon such a litigant.
Case title - Jahur Hasan v. R.M. Srivastava Prin. Sec. Home Lko. And 5 Others CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4901 of 2014
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 234
The High Court deprecated the conduct of an advocate who tried to influence the Court by using such language so as to invoke religious sentiments. The Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava further remarked that such conduct is not good for the temple of justice.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a contempt plea filed by one Jahur Hasan who alleged non-compliance and violation of the order of the High Court dated September 9, 2013, in Writ-C No.48093 of 2013.
Case Title - Lavkush v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 235
Denying bail to 4 prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence incident, the High Court observed that incident might not have taken place if the Union Minister of State for Home had not made alleged utterances threatening farmers to chase them away from District Kheri.
"Political persons holding high offices, should make public utterances in a decent language considering its repercussions in the Society. They should not make irresponsible statements as they are required to conduct themselves befitting their status and dignity of high office which they hold," the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said.
Enemy Property Case: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Samajwadi Party MLA Azam Khan
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 236
Granting bail to Samajwadi Party Leader and UP MLA Azam Khan in an alleged case of grabbing Enemy Property and using it for the construction of the Mohammed Ali Jauhar University, the High Court made some stern remarks against the former Cabinet Minister in the UP Government.
Perusing the pleadings of the affidavits, submissions advanced and pleadings exchanged, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi remarked that it was well established that Khan was out and out for anyhow grab the property which was earmarked as Enemy Property by exploiting his position as a Cabinet Minister.
Case Title: Dr Rajneesh Singh v Union of India and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 237
The High Court dismissed a petition seeking the constitution of a fact-finding committee to research on the "real history" behind Taj Mahal. Petitioner disputed that Taj Mahal was a Mughal structure.
The petitioner also sought a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to open the sealed doors of over 20 rooms inside the Taj Mahal premises so that the alleged controversy pertaining to the "history of Taj Mahal" can be put to rest.
Case title - Akhilesh v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 238
The High Court granted bail to an undertrial prisoner who has been in jail for over 11 years in connection with an attempt to murder case. The court also gave a piece of advice to young lawyers to take up the cases of such prisoners who can't approach courts due to their adverse pecuniary position.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also took into account the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), wherein the Top Court had reiterated that long incarceration of undertrials is violation of their rights provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman And Another v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 239
The High Court has directed a local court in Mathura to decide two applications pending before it, filed in connection with the Sri Krishna Janambhumi Dispute, within 4 months.
The Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai issued this order on a plea made by Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman And Another by observing thus:
"The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed to decide the aforesaid applications expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, in case there is no legal impediment in deciding the aforesaid applications."
Case title - Gulam Sarvar v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5491 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 240
The High Court denied bail to the prime associate of former MP Atique Ahmad (who is currently lodged in Deoria Jail) in connection with an Abduction-Extortion case.
While doing so, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal also stressed that in the changing social circumstances, it has now become obvious that nobody dares to depose against the dreaded and hardened criminals out of fear.
Case title - Prakash Chandra Agrawal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 241
The High Court directed the Director, JTRI to prepare an appropriate program for the training of inquiry officers and disciplinary authorities to ensure compliance with UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in conducting departmental inquiries.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary was dealing with the plea of one Prakash Chandra Agrawal challenging the punishment order passed against himself who was awarded censure entry.
Case title - Manvir v. State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 242
The High Court observed that relationship is not a factor affecting the credibility of a witness as there is no bar in law on examining family members as witnesses. The Court also stressed that evidence of a related witness can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while upholding the life sentence awarded to an accused who raped and murdered an 80-year-old woman in the year 2006 and was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Gautambudh Nagar under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case title - Preeti Malik v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 243
In a significant order, the High Court directed the State Government to conduct a Physical Efficiency Test of a woman (for the post of Jail Warder), who failed to appear for the test last year on account of her pregnancy.
Quoting Maharishi Ved Vyas, the Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
"नास्ति मातृसमा छाया, नास्ति मातृसमा गति:। नास्ति मातृसमं त्राणं. नास्ति मातृसमा प्रिया। (माता के समान कोई छाया नहीं है, माता के समान कोई सहारा नहीं है। माता के समान कोई रक्षक नहीं, माता के समान कोई प्रिय वस्तु नहीं है।) [There is no shade like a mother, no resort-like a mother, no security like a mother, no other ever-giving fountain of life!]"
The Court also noted that the petitioner had traveled a journey of motherhood and became a proud mother, but forced to pay heavy price for it, being denied permission by respondents to appear for physical efficiency test, after she gave birth to a baby.
Case title - Anwar Ali v. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 244
The High Court denied bail to a married man who has been accused of trying to convert the prosecutrix to the Muslim religion and was pressurizing her to perform Nikah.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the accused only betrayed his wife and family, but also breached the trust of an innocent girl, who believed in him and got entangled in his false love.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with the bail plea of one Anwar Ali who has been booked under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3/5 POCSO Act. Allegedly, he introduced himself through social media to the prosecutrix as 'Raj' and got her entangled in his false love web.
Case title - Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 245
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to the State Government to construct the 'Ram Ban Gaman Marg' as per the historical evidence and to connect all such places where Lord Rama took rest at night during his forest Travel (Ban Gaman/वन-गमन).
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir observed that the issue raised by the Petitioner, a political person, cannot be decided in the writ petition. Therefore, the Court dismissed the plea.
Case title - Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 246
The High Court quashed an order passed against an Uttar Pradesh Police Constable removing him from service allegedly because he entered into an argument with the Station Officer in an inebriated state.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma observed that the finding, that the Constable was in a drunken state, was arrived at simply because the petitioner was smelling of alcohol.
Calling it an absolutely erroneous decision on the part of the Enquiry Officer, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur dismissing him from services.
Case Title - Km. Ankita Dikshit v. State Of U.P. And Anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 247
The High Court has observed that the father is legally bound to maintain his child according to the status and lifestyle and it doesn't matter if the mother of the child is also working and earning.
The Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh further observed that a father can't be absolved of his responsibility to maintain a child on the ground that the child does not show compassion towards him.
Case title - Ravi Kant v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home, Govt. Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against Lucknow University, Professor Ravi Kant Chandan, over his alleged 'derogatory' remarks against Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Hindu saints in connection with the ongoing Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute.
The Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Manish Mathur, however, directed UP police to comply with the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the CrPC, in case Professor Chandan's arrest is effectuated.
Case title - Jaywanti Devi v. Union of India and others and connected pleas
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 249
The High Court dismissed pleas challenging land acquisition notifications of the Union Government for the purpose of widening, maintenance, management, and operation of National Highways in district Pilibhit under the Green National Highway Corridor Project
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir noted that the project is for the development of infrastructure and has national importance.
Case title - Smt. Krishna Devi v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 205 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 250
The High Court observed that a wife doesn't lose her opportunity for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that she has sufficient means to maintain herself and her children as she got money after selling the property.
With this, the Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh set aside the judgment and order passed by the family court rejecting the plea of one Krishna Devi under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to her husband to pay her at least Rs.10,000/- as the monthly maintenance.
Case title - Sonu Kasai v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 251
The High Court granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 on the condition that she shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- in 'UP Gosewa Ayog, Lucknow' within four weeks from the date of his release from jail.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania issued this order while granting bail to one Sonu Kasai, who was booked under Sections 3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 after being found in possession of meat/beef (allegedly of Cow).
Case title - Ramsagar v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 465 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 252
"Not pressing the criminal appeal after the conviction of the accused by the court below is like the confession of the offence by the accused," the Allahabad High Court observed recently as it upheld the conviction of a man under Section 354 IPC [Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty].
The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta however reduced the sentence of the convict to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him (about 8 months).
FIR Under 'UP Gangsters Act' Can Be Lodged On The Basis Of A Single Case: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Anwar Shahzad v. State of U.P. and Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3668 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 253
The High Court observed that a first information report under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be lodged on the basis of the involvement of an accused in a single previous case
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed thus while relying upon an earlier judgment of the High Court in the case of Ritesh Kumar Alias Rikki vs. State of U.P. and another.
Case title - Deepika Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another [WRIT - A No. - 5030 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 254
"...majority of the parents, whose son dies untimely, blame his widow for his death and want to get rid of her by resorting to all means, fair and foul, to deprive her of the estate of her husband," the High Court observed as it ordered compassionate appointment for a widow.
The bench of Justice Siddharth observed thus while hearing a plea filed by Deepika Sharma seeking a direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar, to grant her compassionate appointment on account of her husband's death.
Case title - Ram Chandra v. State [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1862 of 1989]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 255
In a significant order, the High Court has directed the Sessions Courts throughout the state to make an endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses, both chief, and cross, on the same day, as far as possible.
The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav and Justice Sunita Agarwal further directed the trial judges in the state to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses.
"This approach is needed to ensure fair and proper trial which is the duty of the trial Court and also to curb the menace where the private witnesses turned hostile for obvious reasons because of long adjournments, permitting an act of maneuvering," the Court added as it referred to the Apex Court's recent ruling in the case of Rajesh Yadav vs State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137.
Case title - Jyoti Sikka v. State Of U.P. Thru.Legal Remembrancer Dept. Of Law And Justice Lucknow [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 23 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 256
Hearing an appeal filed by Former Additional Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh Jyoti Sikka challenging an order of the Single Judge containing adverse remarks made against her, the High Court has asked her to approach "that very judge" who passed the order to seek redressal of her grievance.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further requested the single judge to decide the application, if filed, expeditiously.
Case title - Nawab v. State of UP
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 257
While granting bail to an accused in connection with a criminal case over an altercation between political rivals that suddenly escalated into a violent brawl, the High Court observed that someone's hate did consume Mahatama Gandhi's body, but not his love for humanity.
"Seekers of different paths would do well to remember the Father of the Nation. The Mahatma by the example of his life and the fact of his death, reminds us that the quest of 4 all religions and the essence of an Indian's Dharma is love for fellow beings. Someone's hate consumed his body, but not his love for humanity. A bullet stilled his mortal frame but could not silence the truth in him," the Court observed.
Case title - Chhunna v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 558 of 1996]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 258
The High Court observed that a close relative who is a natural witness, cannot be recorded as an interested witness. With this, the Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a murder convict by District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in 1996.
Explaining the term 'interested witness', the bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi observed that an 'interested witness' must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because of some animus with the accused for some other reason.
Case title - Siddharth Varadarajan And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 259
The High Court quashed the FIR registered against The Wire's founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and reporter Ismat Ara in Rampur over a report on the death of a protester in New Delhi during the farmers protest on Republic Day 2021.
The FIR was lodged under IPC sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity between classes) for tweets of the report on Navreet Singh Dibdibiya (farm law protestor who died during the protest in Delhi) and alleging that they misled the public.
Case title - Mahendra Singh v. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3056 of 2022]
Case Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 260
The High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of raping his 11-year-old daughter. The Court noted that the victim had supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
Calling the facts of the case 'shocking', the Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus:
"The facts of the case are not only shocking but are inhuman also. Applicant who is father of the victim has committed the offence of rape with her daughter aged about 11 years and she has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC."
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To HC Advocate Accused Of Raping Law Student
Case title - Rajkaran Patel v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48511 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The High Court denied bail to an HC advocate, who has been accused of sexually and physically assaulting a Law Student for a substantial long period.
Taking into account the allegations against Advocate-Accused Rajkaran Patel, the Bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed thus:
"The prosecutrix was junior in the office of the applicant. The allegations are against a person practising law and is a person in uniform involved in a noble profession. The office of a lawyer is not less respected than Courts of law."
Case title - Ram Khelawan And Another v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 674 of 1982]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 262
The High Court upheld the life sentence of two accused in connection with a murder case that dates back to the year 1980. The Court, however, directed the state government to consider their case for remission.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi asked the state government to take into account their advanced age and their conduct in jail etc while considering their case for remission.
Case title - Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 6529 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 263
The High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue clear directions to all the concerned authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
According to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the banks/financial institutions and reconstruction companies have the right to take possession of the secured asset and it is the responsibility of the concerned District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to hand over the possession of such secured asset to the financial institutions with the help of the police.
Case title - Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2763 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The High Court has observed that an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. can't be filed against a summoning order passed by a Special Judge in an SC/ST Act Offence. The Court observed thus while taking into account Section 14A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
In the instant matter before the Court, an application under 482 CrPC was moved praying to quash the summoning order passed by II Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri against the applicant for offences u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) of the SC/ST Act
Case title - Rahul v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 265
The High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man who has been accused of, inter alia, committing unnatural sex with his wife without her consent.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery denied pre-arrest bail to one Rahul noting that there are serious allegations against him of assaulting his wife, committing cruelty upon her wife with regard to demand of dowry, committing unnatural sex with her wife without her consent.
Case title - Babu Khan v. State Of U.P.And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3285 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping his daughter-in-law as the Court noted that it is quite unnatural that a father-in-law shall commit rape of his own daughter-in-law along with some other person in our Indian culture.
"...considering that it is quite unnatural that a father-in-law shall commit rape of his own daughter-in-law along with some other person in our Indian culture, considering that the accusation has been made falsely with the object of injuring or humiliating his reputation in the society," the bench of Justice Ajit Singh observed as it extended the benefit of anticipatory bail to accused-Babu Khan (father-in-law of the victim).
Case title - Anamika Srivastava v. Anoop Srivastava [FIRST APPEAL No. - 30 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 267
The High Court (Lucknow Bench) has observed that the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, and force the parties to engage in mediation where the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
The Bench of Justice Rakesh Srivastava and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I further stressed that reference of the parties to mediation is not compulsorily required where the facts and circumstances of the case showcase that no purpose would be served out of such reference.
Case Title: Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The High Court directed the centre and the tax department to take action against officials for issuing high-pitched and unreasonable reassessment orders.
The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has observed that the centre should ensure to establish a monitoring cell at the level of government or CBDT within a month if it has not been established so far. The cell will ensure regular monitoring of the Local Committees, as well as follow-up actions and reviews by the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and Zonal Members, as well as an analysis of the quarterly reports.
Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators, Civil Revision No. 53 of 2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269
The High Court held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal held that an arbitration award is not a decree as defined under section 2(2) of CPC and therefore, the objection under section 47 of CPC, which can be filed only in execution of decree (as defined under section 2(2) CPC), is not maintainable in the proceedings seeking execution of the award.
Case title - Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 273 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270
"The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly," the High Court stressed.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus as it dismissed a revision plea filed by one Laxman Prashad as barred by limitation. The revisionist had filed the plea with a delay of 756 days.