NOMINAL INDEX State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316 Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317 Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318 Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319 Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another...
NOMINAL INDEX
State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316
Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317
Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320
State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322
State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Orders/Judgment of the Week
Case title - State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1709 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Court shall take utmost precaution in finding the accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. With this, the Court upheld the acquittal order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC).
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma noted that the witnesses in the instant cases were not able to recognize the accused persons and the accused persons were named in F.I.R on account of enmity.
Criminal Intimidation Case: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Uttar Pradesh MLA Nahid Hasan
Case title - Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8054 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan in connection with a case of criminal intimidation. The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal denied him bail looking to his criminal history and the order sheet of the trial court showing that he avoided appearing before the trial court.
Essentially, an FIR was registered under Section 406, 504, 506, I.P.C against Hasan and one Nawab by one Shahjahan alleging therein that her husband had given a Bolero pick-up vehicle of which he was the registered owner on rent in the year 2015 to co-accused Nawab.
Case title - Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Referring to several landmark rulings, the Allahabad High Court has observed that by way of an interim order the order of suspension termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in Court.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was essentially dealing with an Intra Court Appeal filed questioning the interlocutory order passed in March 2022 wherein the termination order against an employee of Abss Institute Of Technology was stayed during the pendency of the writ plea filed by the employee challenging the termination order.
Case title - Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 142 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372 CrPC on the ground of inadequacy of sentence and therefore, the appeal preferred by the 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C.] of the crime against the inadequacy of sentence is not maintainable.
The bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan in its order clarified that the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. [No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided] could only be filed on the happening of three situations namely
(i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted;
(ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offence;
(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s).
Case title - Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging the 2012 notification of the Uttar Pradesh Government resuming a piece of land [1500 square meters] in Village Manauri, District Prayagraj where currently a building known as Imambara Qadeem is situated.
Essentially, the UP Government invoked its powers of resumption under Section 117(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to take possession of the property in question. This was done for the Dedicated Freight Corridor project.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2995 of 1985]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for reappreciating the evidence and taking a different view; but there must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.
"In the appeal against order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellate court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.ere must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal," the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Aslam observed.
These observations were made while ALLOWING government appeal against a judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in 1985 by which 3 accused-respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. One of the respondents died during the appeal.
Case title - Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7015 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the First Information Report filed against one Mumtaz Mansoori who allegedly called the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister of India, Amit Shah, and other Union Ministers as 'Dog'.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed that although our Constitution recognizes freedom of speech, however, such right does not extend to hurling abuses or making derogatory remarks against any citizen much less the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Government of India.
Case title - State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 12 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323
The Allahabad High Court allowed the state government's application to withdraw a criminal case against Uttar Pradesh Minister of State for Health, Mayankeswar Saran Singh.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that when the complainant himself is not supporting the prosecution case, then there is no chance of conviction of the accused in the case and thus, withdrawal from prosecution would be in the interest of justice.
Other updates from the High Court
Dealing with a suo moto case regarding an incident wherein an eight-year-old boy was killed and his sister was severely injured after they were attacked by more than 20 stray dogs in Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court has asked the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to file an affidavit as to why a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- may not be awarded to the family of the deceased child.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further asked the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to file a separate affidavit regarding the legal position and compliance thereof by Nagar Nigam for ensuring the safety of street dogs.
Case title - Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya v. Union Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 13882 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court sought a response from the central and state government on a plea moved by Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya's seeking permission to enter the Taj Mahal premises in Agra with his Dharmdand (made of wood) wearing 'Bhagwa Vastra'.
The division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava has posted the matter for further hearing on September 5 as it asked the Union of India and the state government to filed their responses in four weeks' time.
Case title - Suraj Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 4138 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court is set to examine the question as to whether a promise made to the public at large by the Chief Minister of the State be made enforceable or not.
The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari was dealing with a plea moved by Suraj Singh And Others seeking 5 lakh compensation based on an announcement made by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Case title - In Re Ensuring the Security of Life and Safety of Health of the workmen and employees engaged v. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.
Taking note of the photographs depicting that no protective gears have been provided to the workers and they were still waist deep under the water for cleaning drains in the city of Prayagraj, the Allahabad High Court summoned the District Magistrate and Nagar Ayukt, Prayagraj.
Essentially, the Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir was dealing with a suo moto PIL plea wherein the Court had taken note of a news item showing that without any protective gears, open drains were being cleaned up by the persons deployed either by the Nagar Nigam or through contractors in the district.
Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]
In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar and one of the contesting respondents in the case argued that if a historical wrong has been done by the previous sovereign regime, the matter can be adjudicated by the Municipal Court of the present sovereign regime.
Before the Bench of Justice Prakash Padia, it was further argued that Waren Hastings [first Governor-General of Bengal in 1772–1785] had constructed Naubatkhana on the temple of Lord Vishweshwar and recognized the rights of Hindus over the Gyanwapi Compound.
Case title - Mohammad Sayed And Another v. Mohd. Isha And 7 Others
The Allahabad High Court rapped Uttar Pradesh Police officials for providing assistance in demolishing a residential house without any execution case having been registered for the execution of the decree.
Following this, the Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai sought the personal presence of the Superintendent of Police and the erring officials in the court on July 22, 2022, along with their personal affidavits explaining their conduct.
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Allahabad High Court Reserves Judgment On Bail Plea Of Ashish Mishra
Case title - Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13762 of 2021]
The Allahabad High Court reserved its judgment on the bail plea of the Union Minister's Son, Ashish Mishra, who is a prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case.
Mishra is facing a case of Murder for an incident that took place on October 3, 2021, when four protesting farmers were killed after they were mowed down by an SUV, in which Mishra was allegedly sitting.
Having heard the arguments for both sides, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal reserved its judgment in the matter yesterday. Earlier, Justice Rajiv Singh of Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench had recused himself from hearing the case.
Mishra, who was earlier granted bail by the Allahabad HC in Feb 2022, has to again move to the High Court as the HC's earlier order was set aside by the Supreme Court in April 2022 and had ordered fresh consideration of his bail plea.