NOMINAL INDEX Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 183 Pawan Singh And Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 184 Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises 2022 LiveLaw (All) 185 Naushad Ali (Second Bail Application) v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (All) 186 Suresh Chandra Tripathi v. State...
NOMINAL INDEX
Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 183
Pawan Singh And Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 184
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises 2022 LiveLaw (All) 185
Naushad Ali (Second Bail Application) v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (All) 186
Suresh Chandra Tripathi v. State Of U.P And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 187
State of U.P. v. Vasdev Chauhan S/O Brahmchari And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 188
Ram Shanker And Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 189
Satish Sharma And Another v State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 190
CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 191
Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 192
Km. Sanaya Sharma (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 193
C/M Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Smt. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 194
Ram Kumar @ Tuntun v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 195
Mohd. Moin Quraishi v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 196
Surya Udaivir Alias Sonu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 197
Subodh Kumar Jain @ Subodh Jain v. State Of U.P And Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 198
Salman @ Mohammad Salman And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 199
Muraj @ Muraj Rajbhar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 200
Shahanshah v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 201
Juber v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 202
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 183
"India is a Country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our Country united to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects," remarked the High Court as it dismissed a PIL plea filed in connection with the decision of the UP Government to ban meat/liquor sale in Mathura-Vrindavan.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, however, restrained itself from commenting anything upon the validity of the order of the UP Government (meat/liquor ban in 22 municipal wards after declaring the same as a pilgrimage site) as it noted that the PIL plea had not challenged the Government Orders.
Case title - Pawan Singh And Another v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5086 of 2005]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 184
The High Court has observed that if the accused is convicted for two or more different offences, arising out of one and the same transaction, the basic rule is that the sentences must be directed to run concurrently.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh also said that Section 31 of CrPC leaves discretion with the Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently or consequently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Case Title: Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises, A&C Application U/S 11(4) No. 5 of 2022.
Citation: : 2022 LiveLaw (All) 185
The High Court has held that the Court for the purpose of an application under S. 29A of the A&C Act would only be the High Court that appointed the arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that the Principal Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an extension of time. The Court held that Sub-section 6 of Section 29A allows the Court to substitute the arbitrator(s) and conferring this power on the Principal Civil Court would lead to an inconceivable situation where the mandate of an arbitrator appointed by the High Court could be substituted by an inferior Court.
Case title - Naushad Ali (Second Bail Application) v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy Home Lucknow
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 186
The High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of attempting to rape his own daughter and uploading her pictures on Facebook.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh denied bail to one Naushad Ali considering the relationship between the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix, heinousness of the offence, societal impact of the offence and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Case title - Suresh Chandra Tripathi v. State Of U.P And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 187
The High Court has observed that merely because an application of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court, it cannot be a ground to transfer a case from that Court to another.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus while taking into account the mandate of Section 407 Cr.P.C which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases and appeals.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Vasdev Chauhan S/O Brahmchari And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 188
The Uttar Pradesh Government recently apprised the High Court of its circular governing the procedure for filing the government appeal against the order of acquittal.
This was done pursuant to two orders of the High court (the Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav) asking the State Government to furnish the details of the concerned policy/government order/circular.
Case title - Ram Shanker And Another v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2448 of 2009]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 189
The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for killing his own wife and 3 children by way of burning them alive. The Court noted that the convict had failed to explain the incriminating circumstances pointing towards his guilt.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed that the convict was obliged to furnish a proper explanation under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house, however, he failed to do so.
Case title - Satish Sharma And Another v State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5824 of 2010]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 190
The High Court set aside the life sentence awarded to two murder accused as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants/accused had murdered the deceased, who was allegedly their helper.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain further observed that was a complete lack of evidence of the deceased being last seen alive with the accused, and therefore, the Court did not find it safe to confirm the conviction of the accused-appellants for the charge of murder of the deceased.
Case Title: CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. v. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., CIVIL MISC. Arb. A. 12 of 2021
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 191
The High Court has held that the embargo under S.86 of the Electricity Act which provides that only the Regulatory Commission can appoint an arbitrator does not apply when the agreement is for supply simpliciter and does not have an element of transmission, distribution, and trading of electricity and the Court can appoint an arbitrator in such cases.
The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra held that a party that has supplied some material for the construction of an electricity sub-station would not fall within the meaning of licenecee or supplier under the Electricity Act and when the contract is purely a commercial arising out of a supply contract and does not involve an element of trade in electricity, the provisions of Electricity Act are not attracted.
Case title - Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 192
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that in the event of any failure on the part of any person to comply with a Court's order to pay maintenance allowance, the correct/appropriate course for the courts is to first issue a warrant for the levy of fine as provided u/s 421 of CrPC for the purpose of realization of the amount.
With this, the bench of Justice Ajit Singh held that in such cases of non-payment of maintenance allowance, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest straightway against the person liable, without first levying the amount due as a fine as provided under Section 421 of CrPC.
Case title - Km. Sanaya Sharma (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 193
Stressing that a mother's love must be given unconditionally to establish trust and a firm foundation of emotional intimacy in a child's life, the Allahabad High Court recently granted the custody of two children to their mother.
The bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi ordered thus while dealing with a habeas corpus plea moved by one Seema Sharma seeking the custody of her two kids who were in the company of their grandmother.
Case title - C/M Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Smt. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 194
The High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Managing Committee of Anjuman Intezamiya Masjid regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid-Vishwanath Temple dispute in Varanasi.
In their plea, the Majid Committee had opposed the order of the civil court appointing an Advocate Commissioner to present a report after inspecting the idols of Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman, Nandi/Nandideva present within the Mosque premises.
Case title - Ram Kumar @ Tuntun v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3142 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 195
The High Court has observed that a court can summon a person under Section 319 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only on the basis of examination-in-chief of witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence of such witness to be tested by cross-examination.
Here it may be noted that as per Section 319 of CrPC, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, a Court has the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
Can't Direct Govt To Declare Any Monument To Be Of National Importance: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mohd. Moin Quraishi v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 196
The High Court has observed that the Court can't issue a direction to the Government for the purpose of issuing a notification declaring any monument to be of national importance.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed thus while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by one Mohd. Moin Quraishi seeking a direction to the State Government to issue a final notification regarding ancient monuments, namely, Haveli of Khan-I-Dauran, Mauza Basai Mustkil (Tajganj), District Agra declaring the same to be of national importance.
Case title - Surya Udaivir Alias Sonu v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 197
The High Court has reiterated that minor contradictions in the testimony of a witness which do not go to the root of the matter are not material contradictions and on this ground alone, the evidence of such witness cannot be brushed aside/disbelieved.
Observing thus, the bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) upheld the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicting one Surya Udaivir, under Section 302 I.P.C. with life imprisonment.
Case title - Subodh Kumar Jain @ Subodh Jain v. State Of U.P And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6555 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 198
The High Court recently observed that police have unfettered powers of investigation and such investigation can continue even after the charge sheet has been filed under Section 173 (2) CrPC and cognizance has been taken thereon.
"...A Police Officer can suo motu make further investigations in cognizable cases...No permission of the Magistrate is required for carrying out further investigation...," the bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further held.
The bench observed thus while dealing with a writ plea moved by one Subodh Kumar Jain who prayed for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C.
Case title - Salman @ Mohammad Salman And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 348 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 199
The High Court quashed an FIR lodged pursuant to the false allegations of rape made by a woman (who later on, got married to the accused) as the Court found that the lodging of an FIR was a way to build pressure upon the petitioners so as to get her marriage solemnized.
"The justice delivery system which includes the investigating agency as also the Courts cannot be made an instrument of settling personal score specially when in our country the legal system is already overburdened. Such misuse is only going to further confound the situation eating the precious time of both, the Investigating Agency and the Courts in dealing with false cases and as a consequence, thereof genuine cases are bound to suffer," the bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma observed as it 'saddled' Rs. 10K Cost on the alleged victim/first informant.
The Court ordered thus while dealing with a writ plea moved by the accused (now the husband of the first informant).
Case title - Muraj @ Muraj Rajbhar v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 200
The High Court has observed that if someone keeps on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds, or conduct, which may provoke or encourage the deceased to commit suicide, it would amount to abetment.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while rejecting the bail application filed by one Muraj who has been booked under Section 306 of IPC as he has been accused of abetting the suicide of a 16-year-old girl, with whom he was in love.
Case Title - Shahanshah v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10011 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The High Court observed that only on the basis of a single incident, an order of externment can't be passed against a person under Section 3 [Externment, etc. of Goondas] of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goonda Act, 1970.
The Bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) further observed that one cannot be treated to be a habitual offender unless and until there is a recurrence of the offence and at the most the general reputation of the person is that he is desperate and dangerous to the community.
Case title - Juber v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1135 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 202
The High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20K on a person who sought reiteration of a general mandamus, which has already been issued by the High Court in the case of Vimal Kumar and three others Vs. State of U.P. and three others 2021.
It may be noted that in the Vimal Kumar case, the Allahabad High Court had directed the Police authorities to desist from making automatic/ routine arrests, especially in dowry cases (498A IPC), and strictly comply with the pre-conditions laid down under Section 41A of CrPC.
Other Updates from High Court/UP Courts
Case title - Suo-Moto Inre Right To Decent And Dignified Last Rites/Cremat v. State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secretary Home And Ors
The family members of the Hathras Rape victim have conveyed to the Allahabad High Court that they wish to relocate to NOIDA as they do not feel safe in Hathras. The brother of the victim girl has also expressed his willingness to take up a government job in Noida.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh is hearing a Suo-Moto case instituted over the Hathras Rape and Cremation case to examine the right to decent and dignified last rites/cremation.
Former Additional Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh Jyoti Sikka has moved the High Court challenging an order of the Single Judge (of March 2, 2022) alleging that in the order, adverse remarks were made against her which were capable of having professional repercussions for her.
For the uninitiated, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh had taken an exception to Sikka's failure to seek the permission of the Court before leaving the Court premises on March 2 and for her failure to appear in a matter (the entire controversy and the order of the Court has been explained below).
Case title - Mukhtar Ansari @ Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9722 of 2022]
Justice Rajiv Gupta of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a petition filed by former MLA Mukhtar Ansari (presently in jail) seeking to quash a chargesheet filed against him by the Uttar Pradesh police in connection with a case of misappropriation of MLA Funds fund in the year 2012-13.
"The case stands released. Put up before another Bench after seeking nomination from Hon'ble The Chief Justice/ Senior Judge, if possible on 02.05.2022 as fresh, showing the name of Shri Ratnendu Kumar Singh as counsel for the State," the Bench remarked today when the case came before it for hearing.
Ansari is a former M.L.A. of Mau Sadar constituency of Uttar Pradesh and he continued as M.L.A. from the year 1996 to March, 2022 as in the recent election, he did not contest the election.
Case title - Smt. Ankita Mishra And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Calling it an unfortunate issue, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj / Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur to produce the girl who had an intercaste marriage and was abducted from the chamber of the advocate forcefully.
The Bench of Justice Umesh Kumar was essentially dealing with the protection plea filed by a Girl who recently married a man from the OBC community and feared for her life and liberty at the hands of her family members.
Case Title - Suraj Pal v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4629 of 2020]
The High Court sought the personal presence of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Hardoi to explain his failure to commit a criminal case to the Court of Session for over 2 years.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was dealing with a bail application moved by one Suraj Pal/Accused against whom, the police, filed a charge sheet under Section 304 of IPC [Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder], the cognizance upon which was taken by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi on January 3, 2020. The investigation was still on and a further report was also filed on Feb 5, 2020, on which, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.
Case title - Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1935 of 2022]
A 482 CrPC plea has been moved by ex-IPS Officer Amitabh Thakur before the High Court seeking the setting aside of the cognizance order in connection with the case registered against him for allegedly abetting the suicide of a rape victim and her friend who had set themselves ablaze outside the Supreme Court last year.
The 24-year-old woman, who was allegedly raped by Bahujan Samaj Party MP Atul Rai in 2019, had succumbed to burn injuries on August 24. Her male friend, a 27-year-old Delhi University graduate, had died during treatment last week.
Case Title - Kuldeep v. State of U.P
The Allahabad High Court has once again sought the personal affidavit of the State's Director General of Police over curtailing the activities of cheats who constantly call up citizens with the fake offers of lotteries and prizes in order to rob them of their hard-earned money.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir expressed its displeasure over an affidavit filed by the DGP pursuant to Court's order issued on June 30, 2021. In that very order, the Court had issued the following order:
"The Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow shall take immediate steps to trace out this widespread racket of hardened criminals, who are cunning cheats, calling up innocent citizens with alluring offers about extension of loans or lucky draws that they have won or rewards relating to TV shows, that have gone in their favour, so as to extract hard earned money from their pockets in these trying times. The Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow shall immediately issue circulars to the District Police Heads to come down heavily on such cheats and frauds and bring them to book."
Case title - Swami Chinmayanand Saraswati v. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23160 of 2018]
Justice Rajiv Gupta of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday recused himself from hearing a Criminal Case quashing petition filed by former Union Minister and BJP leader Swami Chinmayanand in connection with a rape case registered against him in the year 2011.
"The case stands released. List before another Bench after seeking nomination from Hon'ble The Chief Justice/ Senior Judge, if possible on 05.05.2022," the Bench remarked yesterday when the case came before it for hearing.
Case title - Bimal Tiwari And 14 Ors v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors and connected matters
The High Court recently asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to constitute a committee to look into the grievance of Junior Engineers or Technical Assistants and Computer operators [employed under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005] with regard to the increase of monthly emoluments.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery ordered thus while hearing writ pleas filed by 32 petitioners, recruited on a contractual basis as Junior Engineers or Technical Assistants under the MGNREGA.
The High Court has issued a notice to the complainant/informant [Rampur resident, Sanju Turaiha] in the case registered against The Wire's founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and reporter Ismat Ara for tweeting a report on the death of a protester in New Delhi during the 2021 Republic Day incidents.
Essentially, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar issued this order on a plea filed by Siddharth Varadarajan and Ara seeking quashing of an FIR filed against them under IPC sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity between classes) for tweeting a story on Navreet Singh Dibdibiya (farm law protestor who died during the protest in Delhi) and thereby, misleading people.