CITATIONS: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1 to 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272 NOMINAL INDEX Mohammad Imran v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Minority Wefare And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1 Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) v. State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 2 Sheshmani Nath Tripathi v. E.C.I.Thru. Chief Election Commissioner,New Delhi & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 3 Smt. Prabha Shukla...
CITATIONS: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1 to 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272
NOMINAL INDEX
Mohammad Imran v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Minority Wefare And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) v. State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 2
Sheshmani Nath Tripathi v. E.C.I.Thru. Chief Election Commissioner,New Delhi & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 3
Smt. Prabha Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 4
Aryan Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Janki Prasad v. Sanjay Kumar And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 7
Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. connected wiith Atul Kumar And 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 8
Mahendra Pal Singh Lekhpal And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 9
S/S Shri Surya Traders v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Finance Deptt. Lko & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Roop Lal and Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and 2 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Sanjeev Rai v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Gulfam v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav v State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Atul Kumar and another v. Election Commission of Bharat 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Anoop Kumar Mishra State Of U P And 8 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta Second Bail v. U.O.I. Through Intelligence Officer N.C.B. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Satyaprakash v. State Of U.P And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Najeeruddin v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Sanni Singh v. State Of U P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Dayalbagh Education Institute v. Election Commission Of India And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Dlshad @ Dillu v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 24
Utkarsh Mishra v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Rishi Kumar Trivedi v. Election Commission of Bharat and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Kanika Construction v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 27
Shradha Kannaujia (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 28
Kanhaiya Lal Nishad v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Pinkoo @ Jitendra v. State of U.P. connected with Smt. Ishwari Devi v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 30
Nikhil Upadhyay (Minor) v. State Of U P And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Radhey Shyam And Others v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Bablu Second Bail Application v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim And Ors. v. State Of U.P. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Kartik Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Parveen Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P.Thru C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Ashish And 2 Others V. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Prem Nath Yadava & Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Billu @ Anandi And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Mohammad Kaif v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Shakil Khan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Gulab And Another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Smt. Shakshi Agrawal v. Sri Ashutosh Agrawal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Rajan Singh v. Election Comm.Of India Thru. Chief Election Comm. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 46
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kewal Krishna Arora And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Virendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Chhangur Yadav v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 49
Om Prakash v. Shakti Singh, Tehsildar 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Atul Mishra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Toofani v. State Of U.P. And 13 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Islamuddin v. Sri Rabindra Kumar Mander, D.M. Rampur And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Rahul Pandey And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Rina Kinnar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Kamlesh Pathak v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Smt. Geeta And 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Tarun Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Bheem Singh vs State of UP Through Secretary Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Balram Jaiswal v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 64
State of U.P. v. Krishna Murari alias Murli and others and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. Bank Of Baroda A Body Corporate And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. The Election Commission of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Shriniwas vs State Of U.P. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Sumit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Dept. Of Medical Edu.Govt. Of U.P.Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Sunil @ Moni And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Sudhakar Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Suraj Singh v. Election Commission Of India Nirvachan Sadan And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Babu Pasi alias Babu Lal Pasi and another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Pratiksha Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Yogesh Kesarwani And Anr. vs Devi Shankar Shukla 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Mohd. Afzal @Guddu and Anr. v. State of U.P. . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lucknow . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Hasmukh Prajapati v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Through Its Managing Director . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 80
CITATIONS - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 81 to 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Durga Datt Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another . 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Ahsan And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Mohd.Imran Malik v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Kalicharan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Ram Audhi @ Sudhir Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 85
In-Re v. Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Smt. Habiba v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Alok Shukla And Another v. State Of U P And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Yashpal v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Sp Cbi/Acb Naval Kishore 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Prasiddh Narayan Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Smt. Ramendri v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Monu Thakur v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99
M/S V.K. Traders v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Smt. Sharma Devi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Lko And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Mohammad Azam Khan v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 105
State of U. P. v. Brijesh and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Jatinder Pal Singh vs M/S Statcon Power Controls Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 108
Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Dairy Development And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Bhura v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Chavi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 111
Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Sangram Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Nokhe Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Mukis v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Gamma Gaana Limited v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Prabhat Kumar And Others vs Dheeraj And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 119
C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti And Another V. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 120
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Divisional Manager v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Amrita Nand @ Tribhuvan Arjariya @ Baba v. State of U.P. and Another. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Upendra v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Pankaj Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Smt. Rekha Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Khurshidurehman S. Rehman v. State of U P and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Titu v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Prakash @ Jai Prakash Ruhela v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Sajid @ Kale v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 130
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh connected with Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Jeetu @ Amit Kumar Rawat And Anr. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lucknow And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Sanjay Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora v. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical Educat. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 134
Smt. Kavita Sonkar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Anirudh Kamal Shukla v. Union Of India Thru. Assistant Dir. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Bindu v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Its R.G And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Dr. Syed Kalbe Sibtain @ Noori v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Assembly of God North India Balrampur and another v. State of U.P. through Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 139
X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 140
Rahul Kumar In Wria 323 Of 2022 v. State Of U.P Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Edu. Dept. U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Gopal Krishna Shankdhar @ Krishna Gopal Shankdhar v. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Smt. Shalinee Dubey @ Radhika Dubey v. Abhishek Tripathi @ Gopal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 144
State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue And 4 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Anokhi Lal Second Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others. v. State Of UP and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Anant Mishra @ Amit Mishra @ Surya Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Fareed In Jail v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 154
M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 155
M/s Tirupati Stationary Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 156
State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Sunita And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158
Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159
Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160
Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162
In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk) 2022 LiveLaw (All) 163
Sitaram v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 164
Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 165
Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166
Abhinay Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 167
State of U.P. v. Dharma 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168
Mahadevi v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 169
Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
Abhay Pratap Mishra @ Ujjwal Mishra v. State Of U.P Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Home and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 171
Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 172
Govind v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 173
Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 174
Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 175
Charan Singh v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 176
Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals 2022 LiveLaw (All) 177
Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 178
Razia v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 179
Prem And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 180
Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station v. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority 2022 LiveLaw (All) 181
Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 182
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
Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 203
U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Amit Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 205
Namaha v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 206
Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207
Sakshi Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 208
Kiran Singh v. State Of U.P. And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 209
Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 210
Lavi Choudhari v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 211
M/S Rohit Surfactants Private Limited v. M/S Kanodia Salt Company Ltd.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 212
Chaman Mangla v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 213
Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. N.C.B. along with a connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Ram Autar And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 215
Saurabh Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 216
Rajkumar Yadav v. State Thru C.B.I./ACB Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 217
Dr. J.S. Yadav v. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 218
Jaya Prada Nahata v. Mohd. Azam Khan And 9 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 219
Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 220
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
Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271
Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272
Judgments/Orders
Case title - Mohammad Imran v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Minority Wefare And Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a farmer to point out corruption in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in certain Madarsas as the Court noted that the plea contained omnibus prayers.
"...it is apparent that the prayers, instead of being specific, are omnibus in nature. The prayer to issue such directions is absolutely vague and general in nature," The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed after perusing the prayers of the PIL.
Case title - Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) v. State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 2
The High Court denied bail to a man accused of committing Rape by establishing a physical relationship with the Victim on a false promise to marry her and thereafter, threatening her to accept the Muslim religion.
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi was dealing with the bail plea of one Farhan Ahmad (Shanu) who contended that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case only for the purpose of blackmailing.
Case title - Sheshmani Nath Tripathi v. E.C.I.Thru. Chief Election Commissioner,New Delhi & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 3
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which sought quashing of the order of recognition given to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Indian National Congress (INC) as National Parties by the Election Commissions of India (ECI) and further, allotting symbols to them.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Saroj Yadav was hearing a PIL filed by the petitioner, Sheshmani Nath Tripathi (leader of Samajwadi Party) challenging the 1989 order by the ECI recognizing BJP and INC as a National Party and reserving "Lotus" and "Hand" symbols for them.
Case Title- Smt. Prabha Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court has recently held in a case challenging land acquisition proceedings that private interest has to give way to the larger public interest.
Upholding the proceedings for construction of a railway over-bridge, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agarwal observed,
"Private interest has to give way to the larger public interest. Even if there are some small discrepancies in the process of acquisition, in our opinion in the facts of the present case, the acquisition does not deserve to be set aside as otherwise the project will be delayed which will cause loss to the State besides suffering to the residents of the area, who may be deprived of using the railway over-bridge on account of delayed completion of the project. In any case, the petitioner will be duly compensated for the land owned by her."
Case title - Aryan Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The High Court directed the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to examine and pass a reasoned order in a claim for compensation made in a case of a teacher's death who died due to COVID during the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Polls last year.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan was hearing the plea of one Aryan Srivastava whose mother was assigned election duty in UP Panchayat Elections during which she contracted COVID-19 and died thereafter.
6. Offence Punishable U/S 506 IPC If Committed In Uttar Pradesh Is A Cognizable Offence: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The High Court observed that an offence under Section 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation), if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence
To conclude thus, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi referred to a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 1989, notifying the declaration made by the then Hon'ble Governor of UP that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC when committed in Uttar Pradesh, shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Case title - Janki Prasad v. Sanjay Kumar And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The High Court recently ruled that when an appeal has to be dismissed by the appellate Court on account of the fact that the counsel for the appellant though physically present in the Court, refuses to argue the same for any reason, the dismissal can't be on merits in view of the Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 CPC.
Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 CPC states that the appellate Court can't dismiss the appeal on the merits in cases where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing.
Agaisnt this backdrop, the Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai, while dealing with the Second Appeal of one Janki Prasad held the following:
"...the Explanation to Order XLI Rule 17 CPC also applies in cases where the counsel for the appellant, though physically present in the Court when the appeal is called on for hearing, refuses to argue the appeal or for any other reason is not able to address the Court and in such situations, the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits."
Case title - Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. connected wiith Atul Kumar And 2 Ors. v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 8
Noting that the prosecution, as a matter of routine, does not lay emphasis on the production of independent witnesses during the course of the trial, the Allahabad High Court observed that the failure of the investigating agency to record statements of such witnesses during an investigation must be viewed seriously by the courts of law.
Dealing with a criminal appeal against a murder conviction where no independent witnesses were examined or produced, the Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Manish Kumar was of the further opinion that, that time is not far when the courts may have to invoke the suo motu powers to summon such witnesses for which there ought to exist a witness protection law.
Case title - Mahendra Pal Singh Lekhpal And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The High Court observed that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable to quash the proceedings, which are ex facie bad for want of sanction as required under Section 197 of Crpc (Prosecution of Judges and public servants).
With this, the Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai set aside a summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Farrukhabad against a Lekhpal (applicant number 1) and a Kanoongo (applicant number 2) in the Consolidation department (both public servants) without obtaining necessary sanction as provided under Section 197 of CrPC.
Case Title: S/S Shri Surya Traders v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 10
In a case pertaining to wrongful seizure of a consignment by State authorities citing non-compliance with the provisions of UP GST Act, a single judge bench of Allahabad High Court has observed that "State government has tried to create an atmosphere for free flow of trade and commerce so that a good business environment can be developed in the State of Uttar Pradesh which can be used for development purpose but the State Authorities in their whims and fancies, are bent upon to harass the trading community of the state and the present case is a glaring example of this mischievousness of the State Authorities which needs to be checked at the end of the State government immediately."
Case title - Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11
While denying bail to 4 persons accused of fraudulently withdrawing money from the bank account of a retired High Court Judge, the Allahabad High Court today observed that those who deposit money in banks are honest and it is the responsibility of the banks to keep their money safe 'at any cost'.
The Bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav also observed that those people who do not deposit crores of rupees in the bank and rather hide the same in the basements of their houses, are responsible for hollowing out the economic prosperity of the country.
Opining that the bank has to take responsibility for such cases wherein the money of their customers is withdrawn by cybercriminals as such customers are more honest towards the country since they put their white money in banks.
"Bank account holders' money should be safe. Not only because the customer deposits money in the bank so that he/she can withdraw it when needed, but also because the money deposited by the customers in the bank is white and due to which, the economic condition of the country also improves. On the other hand, there are people in the country who do not deposit crores of rupees in the bank and keep it hidden in the basements of their houses. The banks do not get any benefit from it, and they also hollow out the economic condition of the country. In such a situation, that customer of the bank is more honest towards the country and his money should be kept safe by the bank at all costs and if in any way the money is withdrawn by cybercriminals, then for this, the bank has to take responsibility for it," the Court opined.
Case title - Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11
While denying bail to 4 persons accused of fraudulently withdrawing money from the bank account of a retired High Court Judge, the High Court expressed its agreement with a submission made by the Union Government regarding the filing of a review petition against the Supreme Court's 2018 Adhaar Verdict before the SC.
In its 2018 Verdict, the Supreme Court had ruled that the move of mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank account does not satisfy the test of proportionality.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav was hearing the submissions of RBI, State Government, BSNL, and Union government regarding the measures that could be taken to tackle cyber frauds/cyber crimes/fraudulent withdrawal of money from banks.
Case title - Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Finance Deptt. Lko & Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The High Court has observed that any rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can only be replaced by an Act of an appropriate legislature and the same cannot be replaced by an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed thus as it set aside a government's order of 1986 withdrawing the benefit of bonus required to be paid under Rule 12 of the General Provident Fund (U.P.), Rules, 1985.
Case title - Roop Lal and Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and 2 Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Referring to a Supreme Court's Judgment delivered in 2021, the High Court observed that fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for a family's non-earning members is not just and reasonable.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of a 7-year-old deceased boy, seeking enhancement of quantum, against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order awarding Rs.1,80,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Case title - Sanjeev Rai v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Emphasizing that it is the duty and responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife with all dignity, the High Court recently observed that nowadays, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman would be in a position to maintain her with the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh further remarked that the amount of ₹1500 as interim maintenance is not only a meager amount but also insufficient for the wife to maintain herself.
Case title - Gulfam v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The High Court has observed that a Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the Electricity Act, 2003 notwithstanding Section 193 of CrPC by virtue of Section 153 of the Electricity Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra concluded thus while hearing a Section 482 application filed by one Gulfam challenging the charge sheet filed against him under Sections 135-1(A) Electricity Act [Theft of Electricity] and cognizance taking the order of the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.
Case title - Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav v State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The High Court granted bail to 2 real brothers who have been accused of committing gang-rape upon a victim as the Court noted that she, after leveling the allegations, never admitted for any medical examination so as to establish the fact of gang rape upon her.
"This is the serious matter wherein the attending circumstances, it is required to establish the authenticity of the allegations. It is mandatory and obligatory on the part of the victim to get herself medically examined so as to substantiate the allegation of rape. It is not her choice to admit or not to admit for the medical examination," the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed while granting bail to 2 real brothers/accused.
Case title - Atul Kumar and another v. Election Commission of Bharat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking postponement of elections for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (scheduled to be held in Feb-March 2022) in view of the COVID surge.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari heard the case and after the arguments, the court refused to entertain the PIL and said that reasons for the same shall be recorded later on.
Case title - Anoop Kumar Mishra State Of U P And 8 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Observing that the railways' administration has miserably failed in its duty to prevent encroachment over its land, the High Court today issued a slew of directions to eradicate the menace of encroachment over the Railway land.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava perceived the encroachment over the Railway land as a menace/hindrance to development which ultimately results in the average Indian citizen being deprived of better amenities and experiences.
Case title - Rajneesh Kumar Gupta Second Bail v. U.O.I. Through Intelligence Officer N.C.B. Lucknow
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 19
While granting bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the High Court recently imposed directed him to deposit a bank draft of ₹5 Lacs in the account of 'Army Battle Casualty Welfare Fund'.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has asked the accused, Rajneesh Kumar Gupta to deposit the said amount and submit a receipt thereof before the trial Court.
21. Magistrate Can 'Monitor' An Investigation In Exercise Of Power U/S 156(3) CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Satyaprakash v. State Of U.P And 6 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The High Court has observed that the Magistrate has the power to monitor investigation in the exercise of his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma observed thus while referring to Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, wherein it was explicitly observed that a person aggrieved with the way investigation being done in a matter, can move an application before the Magistrate under section 156 (3) CrPC as the Magistrate is empowered to even monitor an investigation under the said provision
Case title - Najeeruddin v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to an accused in connection with a rape and murder case and directed the Sessions Court to conduct a retrial in the matter.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain was dealing with the appeal of one Najeeruddin, who had been held guilty of murdering 3 persons from the same family and also raping a minor girl.
Case title - Sanni Singh v. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 22
"Caste system in our society is deep-rooted, we boast ourselves as an educated society but we live our lives with double standards. Even after 75 years of Independence, we are not able to get out with this social menace," remarked High Court as it granted bail to a murder accused in connection with an alleged Honour Killing case.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also observed that it is the moral duty of those sane people, who are well-off, to protect the underprivileged and downtrodden so that they feel safe, secure and comfortable.
"Simultaneously, the other group also feel that they are the integral and inseparable part of the society and it is in the larger interest of the country and high time for the introspection for everyone to give serious thought over the matter," the Court further added.
Case title - Dayalbagh Education Institute v. Election Commission Of India And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The High Court dismissed a plea filed praying for a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide online training to the presiding officers (who are susceptible to COVID), for the upcoming assembly polls in the State.
The matter was heard in a special hearing conducted on Sunday by the Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav and it had sought ECI's reply as to whether training through online mode can be given to such individuals who were immunocompromised and whose family members were at risk.
Related news: UP Assembly Polls 2022- Can Officers Who Are Susceptible To COVID Be Given Online Training?: Allahabad HC Asks ECI
Case title - Dlshad @ Dillu v. State of U.P
Case Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The High Court directed departmental action against the Assistant Registrar of the High Court who failed to list a particular case in the fresh list and send the case file to the court citing various administrative instructions and remained defiant even when enquired by the HC about his failure to perform his duty.
Significantly, when the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot called him personally and asked him about the lapse on his part, he reiterated his stand that the order cannot be complied with due to administrative instructions.
Against this backdrop, noting that he remained defiant, the Bench ordered departmental action against him after terming his conduct as interfering with the administration of justice.
"...the Court cannot remain silent spectator to such acts of grave misconduct and deliberate defiance of orders passed by this Court by officers of the registry. Such conduct interferes with the administration of justice. In case such officials are given free run, public at large will lose faith in the judicial system," the Court further remarked.
26. UP Govt Informs Allahabad High Court About Its Preparedness To Hold Magh Mela Amid COVID Spread
Case title - Utkarsh Mishra v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Uttar Pradesh government informed the High Court about its preparedness to hold Magh Mela amid COVID spread.
The UP Govt submitted its response on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed before the Court seeking a direction to the state government to prevent devotees from bathing in/participating in the Mela on the auspicious dates i.e. Shahi Snan on account of COVID spread.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal was told that the UP government has already issued guidelines to be followed by the devotees who come to the Magh Mela.
Case title - Rishi Kumar Trivedi v. Election Commission of Bharat and Anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The High Court refused to entertain another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking postponement of elections for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (scheduled to be held in Feb-March 2022) in view of the COVID surge.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta wasn't convinced to interfere on the basis of the ground raised in the PIL i.e. Pandemic as it noted that the Commission, being a constitutional body, must have taken into consideration the pandemic situation, with utmost responsibility.
The instant plea, moved by one Rishi Kumar Pandey, the State Head of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Maha Sabha, had submitted before the Court that COVID will spread drastically if the election is conducted as per the scheduled as were are currently dealing with the third phase of COVID.
Related News: "Haven't People Lost Lives At Homes Too?": Allahabad HC In Plea Seeking Postponement Of UP Assembly Polls Amid COVID Surge
Case title - Kanika Construction v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The High Court recently observed that there is no absolute bar on the maintainability of a writ petition against the state and its instrumentalities in contractual matters.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava remarked that where the amount is admitted and there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication of detailed evidence and interpretation of the terms of the contract, a writ would very well lie against the State and its instrumentalities.
Case title - Shradha Kannaujia (Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 28
The High Court has observed that the power of the High Court in granting a writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody matters may be invoked only in cases where the detention of a minor is by a person, who is not entitled to his/her legal custody.
In view of this, the Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh dismissed a Habeas plea filed by the mother of a 5-year-old girl seeking minor's custody from her father (her husband) as the Court noted that the appropriate remedy in such matters would lie under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Case Title: Kanhaiya Lal Nishad v. State of U.P.
Case Citaion: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 was brought in considering the increasing objectionable advertisements claiming to cure venereal diseases, diseases and conditions peculiar to women, and the term advertisement as per this act includes 'oral announcements' for the purposes of the Act, Allahabad High Court held.
In an appeal filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge passed in 2011 which held the appellant liable under Section 7 of the Act, Justice Sadhna Rani Thakur observed that advertisements under the said Act can be oral as well.
Case title - Pinkoo @ Jitendra v. State of U.P. connected with Smt. Ishwari Devi v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 30
The High Court set aside the life sentence of two murder convicts, including a woman in connection with the murder of a youth in Aligarh's Gandhi Park area while stressing that 99 guilty persons may escape the clutches of law but one innocent shouldn't be punished.
The judgment came from the division bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Vikas Budhwar on a criminal appeal filed by two murder convicts against a 2012 order of conviction passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh under Sections –302/34 and 114 I.P.C.
Case title - Nikhil Upadhyay (Minor) v. State Of U P And 4 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The High Court has observed that a minor's right to be educated can't be violated on account of his/her father's fraudulent claim under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh was hearing a writ plea moved on behalf of an 8-year-old, Nikhil Upadhyay, whose name had been struck off from the list of beneficiaries under the RTE Act due to a fraudulent claim of his father for minor's free education under the ACT.
Case title - Radhey Shyam And Others v. State
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The High Court set aside the life sentence of a murder convict in a case that dates back to 1981 after concluding that the investigation of the case appeared to be tainted and not as per law.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma didn't find the statements of the eyewitnesses of the incident to be credible and it also discarded several theories put up by the prosecution regarding the motive behind the killing of the deceased.
Case title - Bablu Second Bail Application v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The High Court denied bail to a Husband who has been accused of burning her 22-year-old wife and thereafter, burying her dead body was buried at a secret place in connection with the demand of dowry.
The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav denied bail to Bablu (husband of the deceased) as the court remarked that the alleged act of husband was evident of callous greed of a heartless husband and self-centered irresponsible father of the infant child.
Case title - Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim And Ors. v. State Of U.P. And Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The High Court said that mere incorporation of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) in the FIR and the charge-sheet, would not be a bar to the compromise entered into between the parties to put an end to the disputes between them.
Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed a 482 CrPC application filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the summoning order, in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC.
Case title - Satya Prakash v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 35
The High Court set aside the life sentence of a murder convict in a case that dates back to the year 1998, after concluding that the testimony of the sole eye witness in the case isn't truthful on a material particular and is inconsistent as well.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain, in its analysis of the facts, circumstances, and evidence adduced in the case found several discrepancies in the testimony of the PW1 (informant and brother of the deceased), who is the only eyewitness of the incident and thus, it didn't find it safe to rely on his testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
Case title - Kartik Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 36
In a Special Sunday Sitting, the High Court refused to grant relief to one Kartik Chaudhary who sought a stay on an externment order passed against him so that he can campaign for his wife, who is contesting the Assembly Elections in Uttar Pradesh from Aligarh's Khaira seat.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma observed that the petitioner isn't contesting the elections himself and rather, his wife is a candidate for the polls, and since she is under no restraining order, she can freely canvass for herself.
38. UP Power Corporation EPF Scam: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused Parveen Kumar Gupta
Case title - Parveen Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P.Thru C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The High Court granted bail to the former General Manager of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and prime accused in the Corporation's EPF Scam, Parveen Kumar Gupta.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has granted him bail on the condition of his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Case title - Ashish And 2 Others V. State Of U.P.And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The High Court has observed that conducting or not conducting preliminary enquiry is the domain of Investigating Officer and on which basis, F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed thus while hearing a 482 CrPC plea filed by the Husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the victim, Seema seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR that had been lodged against them under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.
Case title - Prem Nath Yadava & Another v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The High Court upheld the life sentence of a convict in a murder case that dates back to the year 2002 while stressing that there is no prohibition that the police personnel should not record dying declaration and that such a dying declaration is also admissible in evidence.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Budhwar further noted there might be certain defects in the investigation so conducted by the Investigating Officer, but the same cannot ipso facto be a ground to hold that the appellants are not guilty, as there exists ocular and documentary evidence, which proves that the appellants have committed the murder of the deceased.
41. Criminal Appeal Can't Be Dismissed On The Ground Of 'Not Pressed': Allahabad High Court
Case title - Billu @ Anandi And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The High Court observed that a Criminal Appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of not being pressed.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed thus while allowing a revision plea filed against an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 101 of JJ Act dismissing an appeal filed by the accused/revisionist on the ground of not pressed.
Case title - Mohammad Kaif v. State Of U.P And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man named, Mohammad Kaif who has been accused of trying to incite religious sentiments by raising anti-national slogans during Anti-CAA protests.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh considered the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail along with the submissions of the counsel for the parties, nature of the accusation, the role of the applicant, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, and opined that a case for anticipatory bail was made out.
Case title - Shakil Khan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The High Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered over the circulation of a video on Facebook, wherein an anonymous Maulana was seen as saying that 'Hazrat Adam is the father of the Hindus'.
Having perused the contents of the FIR, the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ajai Tyagi found that prima facie a cognizable offence was disclosed in the same and in view of the law settled, the Court added, prayer for its quashing cannot be allowed.
Case title - Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The High Court granted bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni', who is the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case. The Court noted that there might be a possibility that the driver (of Thar) tried to speed up the vehicle to save himself, on account of which, the incident had taken place.
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.
Case title - Gulab And Another v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The High Court set aside the life sentence of a murder convict in a case that dates back to the year 1980, after concluding that the testimony of the sole eye witness in the case isn't reliable.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain, in its analysis of the facts, circumstances, and evidence adduced in the case found that the testimony of the PW1 (who accompanied the deceased just before the incident), who is the only eyewitness of the incident and thus, it didn't find it safe to rely on his testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant.
Case title - Smt. Shakshi Agrawal v. Sri Ashutosh Agrawal
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The High Court has observed that the fact that a wife is not having anyone to accompany her across a long distance is also a relevant consideration in ordering the transfer of a matrimonial case.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir observed thus while allowing a transfer application filed by a wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial case (filed by the husband) from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad.
Case title - Rajan Singh v. Election Comm.Of India Thru. Chief Election Comm. And Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking postponement of Uttar Pradesh State Assembly Polls 2022 on grounds of certain discrepancies in the information/data provided by the Election Commission of India regarding UP Assembly polls.
Essentially, the PIL plea moved by petitioner in person Rajan Singh submitted that the Election Commission of India, while issuing the Press Note giving the information to hold the assembly elections in five states, gave certain factually incorrect information.
Case title - National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kewal Krishna Arora And Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 47
In a motor accident death claim case, the High Court recently observed the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the person driving the vehicle, which caused the accident of the deceased, was not duly licensed at the time of the accident.
Referring to a 2003 ruling of the Apex Court (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru and others), the bench of Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving license from the issuing authority at the time of employment.
Case title - Virendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The High Court observed that the High Court should interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Cour if it arrives at a finding that the trial Court's decision was perverse or otherwise unsustainable.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed against the 2017 order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura acquitting the 3 persons under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act.
Case title - Chhangur Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The High Court granted bail to a man who has been accused of posting objectionable pictures of the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi on Facebook and WhatsApp which allegedly enraged the public at large.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted him bail keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding the complicity of the accused, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Om Prakash v. Shakti Singh, Tehsildar
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council to take disciplinary action against striking lawyers at Uttar who continuously abstained from work on every date between February 5, 2020 to January 5, 2022.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued this extraordinary order after observing that the Apex Court has held the strikes by lawyers to be illegal and had directed that the judicial work cannot be stopped and hampered at the instance of the lawyers.
Case title - Atul Mishra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The High Court recently granted bail to a POCSO Accused who ran away with a 14-year-old girl (victim) due to a romantic affair between them. The Court noted that both of them fled away, got married in a Temple, and remained in company with each other for almost two years during which the girl even gave birth to a baby.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also remarked that it would be extremely harsh and inhuman to devoid the baby from parental love and affection on account of the fact that both the accused and minor victim loved each other and decided to get married.
The Court, in a significant clarification also said that the scheme of the POCSO Act clearly shows that it did not intend to bring within its scope or limits, the cases of the nature where the adolescents or teenagers are involved in a dense romantic affair.
Case title - Toofani v. State Of U.P. And 13 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The High Court has observed that a Victim/Informant under Section 372 of CrPC can't prefer an appeal against an acquittal/lesser offence/inadequate compensation order passed before December 31, 2009 (the day on which a proviso was added to Section 372 CrPC).
It may be noted that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC says that a victim/informant has a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Aslam however clarified that such an appeal can be filed only if the order in question has been passed after the enforcement of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Case title - Islamuddin v. Sri Rabindra Kumar Mander, D.M. Rampur And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The High Court dismissed a contempt plea filed regarding the usage of loudspeakers in the Temple as well as Mosque and observed that the same is a sponsored litigation so as to affect the communal harmony of the State keeping in mind the State Elections.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal was hearing a contempt plea filed by one Islamuddin against Rabindra Kumar Mander, D.M. Rampura alleging that he is willfully disobeying the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a 2015 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea.
Case title - Rahul Pandey And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Stressing that the investigating agency and the investigating officer have unfettered power of investigation, the High Court observed that it is not open for the person, who is to be interrogated or questioned to decide the venue of such interrogation.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further observed that the High Court has no power to interfere with the investigation under the exercise of its power under Article 226.
Case title - Rina Kinnar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 55
The High Court has observed that for adopting a child, a marriage certificate is not a sina-quo-non and even a single parent can adopt a child under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a Transgender person and her husband who sought a direction upon the Sub Registrar, Hindu Marriage, District Varanasi to consider and decide the online application for marriage filed by them
Case title - Kamlesh Pathak v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 56
The High Court set aside the detention order passed against former Minister of State and MLC Kamlesh Pathak under the National Security Act, 1980 in connection with a March 2020 double murder case.
This order was passed by the division bench of Justice Sunita Agrawal and Justice Sadhana Rani Thakur in a habeas corpus petition filed by Pathak (Detenue/Petitioner) to quash the impugned detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya in January 2021 and orders passed on different dates in March, April, July, and October 2021 extending detention of the petitioner.
Case title - Smt. Geeta And 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The High Court has clarified that as per Section 202 (1) CrPC, if an accused resides beyond the jurisdictional area of a Magistrate then it is mandatory for such a Magistrate to either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made, before issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further observed that as per the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. (as amended with effect from 23.06.2006), the requirement is that in those cases, where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the concerned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process.
Case title - Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The High Court observed that the use of Cyberspace by some people to vent out their anger and frustration by travestying the Prime Minister, Key Figures holding the highest office in the country, or any other individual is abhorrent and it violates the right to reputation of others.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while refusing to quash criminal proceedings including the charge sheet, cognizance and the summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar against one Niyaz Ahmad Khan who allegedly shared morphed photos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Facebook.
Case Title: Tarun Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The High Court recently allowed the claim for maintenance of a wife under Section 125 of CrPC, despite the grant of divorce decree by the Family Court, while noting that an appeal against the said decree was pending before the Court and the same had not attained finality.
Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi discarded the husband's plea that a divorced wife cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It also rejected the argument that since the Family Court has awarded permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no maintenance under CrPC can be awarded. It observed,
"It is clear that as O.P. No. 2 (wife) has not accepted the amount of alimony as she has challenged the divorce decree in appeal and appeal is pending and in that circumstances she can not accept the amount of alimony. So it can not be said that she has sufficient financial resources as permanent alimony has been awarded to her. At present she has no source of income and financial support to maintain her and comes in the category of destitute."
Case Title: Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The High Court has held that once in exercise of its powers under Section 406 CrPC the Supreme Court transfers a case from the subordinate criminal court in one state to a subordinate criminal court in another state, any appeal against an order in the said case shall lie before the High Court in the transferee High Court.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi made this observation while dealing with a criminal appeal, wherein a preliminary objection was raised by the CBI that the appeal is not entertainable before Allahabad High Court as the cause of action arose in Rajasthan.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently delved into the power of Courts at the time of framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC and to discharge an accused under Section 227 CrPC.
Justice Sangeeta Chandra observed,
"Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions the Court is required to consider the 'record of the case' and documents submitted there with and, after hearing the parties, either discharge the accused or where it appears to the Court and in its opinion, there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge."
63. Power U/S 311 CrPC For Recall Of Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Explains
Case Title: Bheem Singh vs State of UP Through Secretary Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 62
The High Court has rejected an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria rejecting two applications filed by the Applicant/accused under Section 311 of CrPC for recall of two prosecution witnesses.
While doing so, Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori shed light on the applicability of Section 311 CrPC.
"Section 311 of the Code gives a wide power to the court to summon a material witness or to examine a person present in court or to recall a witness already examined. It confers a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice require. The word "just" cautions the court against taking any action which may result injustice either to the accused or to the prosecution," it observed.
Case title - Balram Jaiswal v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The High Court recently denied bail to a man who allegedly shared intimate pictures of his girlfriend with her family members as it noted that this was an exclusive case of betrayal of the faith of the victim by the applicant.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also observed that while the victim permitted the accused to have those photographs under certain confidence and understanding, the applicant/accused had backstabbed her and betrayed her to its core.
Case Title : Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that where Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to a statute and the party is entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing statutory appeal, the application seeking the latter relief has to be considered by the Court first and only thereafter, the appeal can be considered on merits.
While answering a reference made by a single judge in relation to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the division bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Pritinker Diwaker held,
"As far as the issue regarding hearing of the application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal simultaneously is concerned, in our view, firstly the application has to be considered. Only thereafter, the appeal can be considered on merits but there is nothing in law which requires hearing of appeal on merits to be postponed mandatorily after acceptance of the application seeking condonation of delay. Both can be taken up on the same day. However, the appeal has to be heard on merits only after the application seeking condonation of delay has been accepted."
Case title - State of U.P. v. Krishna Murari alias Murli and others and connected matters
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 65
The High Court commuted the death sentence awarded to 4 people in a 27-year-old murder case while noting that the case did not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases', warranting capital punishment.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma didn't agree with the opinion of the trial court that the murder was premeditated and pre-planned one. In fact, the trial court had concluded that the imposition of a lesser sentence than that of a death sentence, would not be adequate and appropriate.
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. Bank Of Baroda A Body Corporate And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The High Court has observed that in case Bank/financial institution is satisfied that its dues are paid before the auction sale is confirmed, then the Recovery Officer would be required to cancel the auction sale.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Singh observed thus while dealing with a Writ Petition seeking to quash a 2015 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow ordering the Recovery Officer to take forcible possession of the mortgaged property from the petitioner.
Case title - Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. The Election Commission of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking transfer of Laxmi Singh, the Inspector General of Police (IG), Lucknow Range on the ground that her Husband, Rajeshwar Singh [Former Joint Director ED] is a Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) candidate from Sarojini Nagar, a constituency in the Lucknow district.
Terming it as proxy litigation, the Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed the plea on the ground that the plea had been filed even though key details were not disclosed in the plea.
Case Title : Shriniwas vs State Of U.P. And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 68
"(Circumstantial) evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence," the High Court reiterated recently.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidhyarthi while dismissing an appeal filed by the victim against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 302, 34 IPC.
Case Title: Sumit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Dept. Of Medical Edu.Govt. Of U.P.Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that when employment in a public service is obtained by playing fraud, the long continuation in such service would be immaterial to uphold the appointment.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed,
"it is evident that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and played fraud for securing public employment and, therefore, his long continuation (15 years) would not be of any help to him to continue to hold his post inasmuch as his appointment was void ab initio."
Case title - Sunil @ Moni And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The High Court observed that an accused who is charged with a serious offence, must not be stripped of his/her valuable right of a fair and impartial trial because it would be a negation of the concept of due process of law.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while dealing with a 482 CrPC Application filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, district Meerut who rejected the Rape accused prayer to recall the witness/victim for the purpose of cross-examination.
Case title - Sudhakar Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The High Court has observed that in absence of any finding recorded by authorities that a person has misused the firearm in question or there is any other disability on his/her part, the exercise of power in canceling the firearm license is not justified.
The Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed thus while hearing a writ plea filed against an order of May 1989 passed by Collector canceling the firearm licence of the petitioner, Sudhakar Mishra. His appeal was also rejected in October 1995 passed by Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi.
Case title - Suraj Singh v. Election Commission Of India Nirvachan Sadan And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 72
While dealing with a plea that raised complaints regarding EVM Tampering in the ongoing Uttar Pradesh State Assembly Elections, the High Court asked the Election Commission Of India to remain vigilant to all such situations and not to allow doubts of any description arise.
The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also observed that the democratic process, being sacrosanct, is well protected under the Constitution of India by placing a respectful restraint on the scope of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Case title - Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Stressing that the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service, the High Court recently upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a Government employee who was found to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also observed that an employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service if on consideration of the service record, it is found that the work of such an employee has not been upto the mark or he has become 'dead wood' for the organization.
75. Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal Of Murder Convict After 40 Yrs, Sets Aside Conviction
Case Title : Babu Pasi alias Babu Lal Pasi and another v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, has allowed the appeal of a Murder convict after 40 years, setting aside the order passed by Sessions Court and directing the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith.
The criminal appeal filed in 1982 by Ringu Pasi, convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao for offences under Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 34 and Section 404 (Dishonest misappropriation of property) IPC, came to be decided by a bench comprising of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma on Tuesday, February 22, 2022.
Case title - Pratiksha Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Stressing that it is well settled that it is the right of a major to live with anyone out of his/her own will, the High Court has held that the fact that a married boy is not above 21 years of age, would not render the marriage void.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shamim Ahmed further clarified that at best, this could render the person responsible, liable for punishment in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
77. Undertaking As Contemplated U/S 4 Of Partition Act Must Be Unconditional: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Yogesh Kesarwani And Anr. vs Devi Shankar Shukla
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that a member of an undivided family being a shareholder of the family's dwelling-house is entitled to exercise his rights under Section 4 of the Partition Act only if the undertaking is unconditional. The declaration was made by Justice Jaspreet Singh.
Section 4 of the Partition Act provides that where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.
78. Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its Registry
Case Title: Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The High Court has reiterated that the identity of a juvenile/ child in conflict with law must not be disclosed. Thus, the Court directed its Registry to redact the name of the juvenile accused in the present case, from the entire record.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori observed,
"the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed."
Case Title : Mohd. Afzal @Guddu and Anr. v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 78
"It is crystal clear in the catena of judgement that statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not fall within the ambit of evidence. Such evidence is only for confrontation in cross-examination. The statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., being wholly, inadmissible in evidence, cannot be taken into consideration," the Allahabad High Court has held recently.
The remarks were made by Justice Om Prakash Tripathi and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta while dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the appellants against the order of conviction passed by Special Judge, Bulandshahr and sentencing the appellants to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
The Bench noted that in reaching the conclusion of guilt, the trial Court had relied on the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 CrPC, with the help of Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act. It disagreed with this course of action.
Case Title: Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that a license to run a fair price shop is a privilege conferred by the State on a person. These kind of licenses does not fall within a category of fundamental right to carry on their business as provided in Article19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
"A need for fairness in procedure adopted for suspension and cancellation of such license/agreement would not mean that these licenses fall within the category of a fundamental right to carry on the business as provided under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said.
81. Difference Between 'Seat' & 'Venue' Of Arbitration: Allahabad High Court Explains
Case Title: Hasmukh Prajapati v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Through Its Managing Director
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court while adjudicating upon a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India discussed the difference between 'Seat' and 'Venue' of Arbitration in the light of several judicial precedents.
Justice Siddharth clarified,
"The term "seat" is of utmost importance as it connotes the situs of arbitration. The term "venue" is often confused with the term "seat" but it is more a place often chosen as convenient location by the parties to carry out arbitration proceedings but should not be confused with "seat". The term "seat" carries more weight than "venue" or "place"."
Case title - Durga Datt Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 81
While refusing to quash criminal proceedings in connection with a fraud involving Rs. 17 Crore of public money, the Allahabad High Court recently stressed that the abuse of public office for private gain has grown in scope and scale and hit the nation badly and that corruption reduces revenue, slows down economic activity, and holds back economic growth.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta was hearing a 482 CrPC application filed by one Durga Datt Tripathi who has been named as an accused in Rs.17.27 crores embezzlement case.
Case Title - Ahsan And Others v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Upholding the life imprisonment sentence of 5 convicts in connection with a 2003 murder case, the High Court observed that the benefit provided under section 57 IPC cannot be extended to the appellants merely on the ground that they are languishing in jail for about 18 years.
Having analyzed the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash VII disagreed with the argument of the counsel for the appellants that they could be released by taking recourse to the Section 57 IPC as they have already suffered 18 years of imprisonment.
Case title - Mohd.Imran Malik v. State Of U.P And Another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against one Mohd. Imran Malik, who is the admin of a WhatsApp group, wherein a message was shared which allegedly contained the photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the face of a pig.
Not finding any 'cogent' reason to quash the case, the Bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam dismissed his 482 CrPC Application as it noted that he was a 'group admin' and also a co-extensive member of the WhatsApp group
85. Defence Of Accused Can't Be Looked Into In Writ Plea Seeking Quashing Of FIR: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Kalicharan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The High Court has observed that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into while considering the writ petition seeking quashing of the First Information Report.
The Bench Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma observed thus while dismissing a plea filed by one Kalicharan seeking the quashing of the impugned F.I.R. registered against him under Section 302, 120-B I.P.C.
Case title - Ram Audhi @ Sudhir Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Anr
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to issue necessary directions to the Investigating officers regarding preparation of true site plan/map with dimensions in the correct manner and also to take photographs of the spot with smart phones.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh issued this order while allowing the bail plea of a gang rape accused as it noted that in the case, site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer in a most cursory manner.
Case title - In-Re v. Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The High Court disposed of a contempt case against a lawyer who abused a lady judge in the open court after he tendered an unconditional & unqualified apology before the court/judicial officer.
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan however imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- upon him to be deposited at the District Legal Services Authority, Mau. Further, the contemnor/advocate would be under observation with regard to his conduct and behavior for a period of two years.
Case title - Smt. Habiba v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The High Court observed that special leave to appeal as envisaged under Section 378(4) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could be granted by the High Court only where the view taken by acquitting judge is clearly unreasonable.
The Bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam further added that it is the duty of the court to punish the guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt and it is also the duty to acquit the accused when it is not so established.
Case title - Alok Shukla And Another v. State Of U P And 2 Others
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 88
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State and that it is not open to the Courts to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further opined that the selection and appointment to any post should be made strictly in accordance with terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules.
Case title - Yashpal v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The High Court has observed that as per provisions of Section 72(7) of Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, a Civil appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the District Magistrate would lie before the District Judge of the respective District.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus in light of the notification issued in the year 1978 by the UP Government, wherein the appellate judicial authority appointed by the State Government is "District Judge", who has been designated to hear the appeal against the order made by the DM Concerned regarding the confiscation of a vehicle under the Act.
Case title - Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 90
The High Court observed that during the confiscation proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, the Magistrate has no power under sections 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle in question.
The Bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi has concluded thus in view of the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs. State of U.P. 1982 AWC 167, wherein it was held that during the confiscation proceedings u/s 72 of UP Excise Act, a Magistrate is not empowered to release the seized vehicle.
Case Title - Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Sp Cbi/Acb Naval Kishore
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The High Court recently made significant observations on the growing menace of corruption in society. It observed that it is like a termite in every system and once it enters the system, it keeps on getting bigger and bigger.
"Corruption is a termite in every system. Once it enters the system, it goes on increasing. Today, it is rampant and has become a routine. Corruption is the root cause of all the problems, such as poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, pollution, external threats, underdevelopment, inequality, social unrest. The menace has to be put into account. The offence is against society. The Court has to balance the fundamental rights of the accused to the legitimate concerns of the society at large vis-avis the investigating agency," the Court remarked
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal averred thus while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D., who has been arraigned as an accused in a corruption case. While denying him bail, the Court also stressed that the medical practitioner should follow the oath which is administered to them at the time of convocation as provided by the Indian Medical Association.
"The medical practitioner administers an oath at the time of convocation as provided by Indian Medical Association which is an extension of Hippocratic oath taken the world over. The oath is not merely a formality. It has to be observed and followed in letter and spirit. It is on these lines that the apex medical education regulator, National Medical Commission has suggested that the Hippocratic oath be replaced by 'CHARAK SHAPATH' during the convocation ceremony for graduates in medical services," the Court averred.
Case title - Prasiddh Narayan Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 92
The High Court observed that the time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus as it dismissed a Writ Petition filed seeking a direction to the Government Authority to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner more than 12 years ago.
Case title - Smt. Ramendri v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The High Court imposed ₹20,000 Cost on a Dowry Death Accused after noting that she misused the process of law by filing successive applications before the Court suppressing the material facts and documents and had misled the Court.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh further stressed that honesty, fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest order to approach the court, failing which the litigant should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time.
95. Magistrate Has Duty To Ensure Fair Probe After Passing Order U/S 156 (3) CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The High Court observed that the Magistrate cannot wash his hands of the case after passing an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and that it is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that investigation is done impartially and in a fair manner.
The Bench of Justice Umesh Kumar observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (60) ACC 689, wherein the Apex Court held thus:
"...there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same."
Case title - Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The High Court granted bail to a man who has been booked under Sedition Charges (Sedition 124-A IPC) as he allegedly supported and posted Flag of Pakistan on his Facebook I.D. and thereby tried to create any social disturbance in the country.
Having heard the counsel of the petitioner/Mohammad Niyaz, the Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, was of the opinion that it was a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application was allowed.
Case Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96
"Evidence of a public officer cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is a police officer," the High Court held while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in a case pertaining to recover of 1,025 kg ganja.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav discarded the argument that the arresting officials did not comply with the mandatory provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Case title - Monu Thakur v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of burning a 14-year-old girl alive after committing rape upon her.
Acquitting the accused of Rape and Murder charges, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain noted that that there was no worth-while evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused-appellant.
Case Title: Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The High Court made it clear that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot and does not oust the High Court's power of judicial review contained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary in nature. It is also to be noted that the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are constitutional powers and the same cannot be excluded by legislation. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act cannot curtail the powers under the grundnorm being the constitution," a Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.
100. No Class-IV Employee Should Normally Be Transferred Out Of District: Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The High Court observed that no Class-IV employee should normally be transferred out of the district. The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary made this observation while setting aside a transfer order passed against a Class IV Employee as it noted that the same was punitive in nature.
Essentially, the petitioner Smt. Maya (a Class IV Employee) was transferred by State Medical Health Department from Lucknow to Kanpur by transfer order dated July 12, 2021, on administrative grounds, however, the officer responsible for her transfer did not give any reason whatsoever for transferring her.
101. Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable In Case Of A Bailable Offence: Allahabad High Court
Case title - M/S V.K. Traders v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The High Court held that an application for grant of Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in case of an offence that has been declared by the concerned statute as a bailable offence.
The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal further clarified that anticipatory bail does not arise for an offence that is bailable and a direction for the same can be issued only in respect of non-bailable and cognizable offences.
Case Title: Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, reiterated that a Court, in exercise of its discretion, may refuse relief in a case where there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, if it is of the opinion that no "real prejudice" is caused to the affected party.
"Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused," the bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh reiterated.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102
In a relief to 3 candidates who participated in the 2018 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) recruitment process but were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), the High Court directed the Central Government to consider their candidature if they remove their tattoos.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre and the SSB that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
Case title - Smt. Sharma Devi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Lko And Ors
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The High Court held that a daughter-in-law is very well entitled to allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds.
The Bench of Justice Manish Mathur relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that a widowed daughter-in-law is eligible for allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a writ plea filed by one Sharma Devi whose application for allotment of fair price shop on the compassionate ground had been rejected by the Government authority on the ground that she does not come within the definition of 'family' as described in paragraph IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5th August, 2019.
Case title - Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The High Court has directed the Proper Officers/Assessing Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh to follow the principles of natural justice as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017/ U.P. Goods and Services Tax, 2017.
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed thus in a Tax Writ filed by Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals that had moved the Court after an assessment order was passed against it creating a demand of tax.
106. Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To MP Azam Khan In Case Over His Alleged Remarks Against RSS, BJP
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The High Court granted bail to the Senior Samajwadi Party leader and a Member Of Parliament, Azam Khan in connection with a case registered against him for allegedly making derogatory statements against BJP, RSS by way of misusing his official letterhead and seal as a UP Minister.
Noting that Khan has been in jail since February 2020, a charge-sheet has been submitted against him and the trial Court has taken cognizance of it, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha was of the view that his continued custody isn't necessary for the purpose of further investigation and trial in the instant case and therefore, he was granted bail.
Case title - State of U. P. v. Brijesh and another
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The High Court upheld an acquittal order of a trial court in a murder case after concluding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased by administering poison to him.
With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected the application filed by the State Government seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal order. The appeal was also dismissed summarily at the admission stage.
Case Title : Jatinder Pal Singh vs M/S Statcon Power Controls Ltd
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The High Court has held that a director, who is not involved in the day to day affairs of a company, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
'It is clear from the perusal of the complaint that there is no specific averment that applicant is involved in day-to-day affairs of the company. There is only general allegation that applicant is a Director of the company. The documents filed by the applicant establishes that the applicant was a nominee Director and who has now resigned. Considering the aforesaid facts and the law propounded on the point it is clear that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he can not be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act," Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi held.
109. Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To MP Mohammad Azam Khan In UP Jal Nigam Recruitment Scam Case
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The High Court granted bail to Senior Samajwadi Party leader and a Member Of Parliament, Mohammad Azam Khan in a case registered against him in connection with the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam recruitment scam.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that the State had failed to point out any clinching evidence from the charge sheet against Khan, which could show that he actively participated in the recruitment process in the U.P. Jal Nigam.
Case Title : Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Dairy Development And Others
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The High Court observed that the Precarious financial condition of a corporation can not be a ground to delay payment of pensionary benefits that are due to superannuated employees.
The Bench of Justice Irshad Ali made this observation on a plea filed by one Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh who sought direction upon the Government authorities to make payment of him a full amount of gratuity to along with interest in view of the amended provisions of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Case title - Bhura v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The High Court modified the sentence of Life Imprisonment awarded to a 32-Year-Old Rape convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for 13 years, which the convict has already served out.
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi ordered thus while observing that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was about 14 years and the convict was a 19-year-old, married man. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix married later on and is leading a peaceful married life.
Case Title: Chavi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court, sitting in Lucknow, reiterated that while dealing with an application for discharge under Section, the Court is required to only see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Detailed inquiry is not required at this stage and the accused can be discharged when the charge is groundless.
"At the stage of charge the court is not required to consider pros and cons of the case and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out," Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed.
Case Title: Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court granted bail Former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur in the abetment to suicide case, in which a woman and her friend had set themselves on fire outside the Supreme Court and succumbed to burn injuries.
"Admittedly, the charge sheet is already filed and there is no averment in the counter affidavit for tampering any evidence," the bench of Justice Rajeev Singh stated.
Case title - Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) from whose possession allegedly over 1 Quintal of Ganja was recovered.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted bail to one Om Prakash Verma who claimed before the Court that the procedure laid down in the Standing Order to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband was not followed in the instant case.
Case title - Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Others
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the acquittal of a Murder-Robbery accused as it noted that the alleged extrajudicial confession made by all the accused persons was highly unnatural and the same was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi was hearing an appeal filed by the informant of the case (US/ 372 CrPC) challenging the judgment and order of September 2021 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bijnor, acquitting the accused persons in a Murder-Robbery case.
Case title - Sangram Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prosecution must stand on its own legs based on its own evidence and that suspicion can't be allowed to take the place of proof even in a domestic inquiry.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma observed thus as it set aside the dismissal order passed against an Uttar Pradesh police official for allegedly misbehaving with the private cook under the influence of alcohol.
Case title - Nokhe Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 116
While stressing that during the trial of a case, the testimonies of the interested witnesses have to be examined with extra care and caution, the Allahabad High Court today dismissed an appeal filed by the informant of the case challenging the acquittal order of the trial court in an attempt to murder case.
Finding serious discrepancies in the statements of the interested witnesses in the case, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi upheld the October 2014 judgment and order passed by the ASJ, Mahoba acquitting two accused charged for offences under Sections 387, 307/34, 452, 323/34 and 427 IPC.
Case title - Mukis v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 117
The Allahabad High Court observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and especially to protect women and children and also old and infirm parents and that this provision falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), re-enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it stressed that this provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.
Case Title: Gamma Gaana Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118
The Allahabad High Court bench consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed that the refund application under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.
"We find that the refund application of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the respondent merely on the ground of delay, ignoring the order of the Supreme Court," the court said.
Case Title: Prabhat Kumar And Others vs Dheeraj And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 119
The Allahabad High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a minor (as he then was), who lost one kidney and suffered liver damage on being hit by a motorcycle while driving a moped.
Justice Ajai Tyagi said,
"The learned tribunal has not taken sympathetic view which is required by tribunal in such matters when the child has suffered such a great loss of body part. Theories of just compensation has also been overlooked by the tribunal while adjudicating this matter, just because no disability or injury report was filed."
Case title - C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti And Another V. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to take a decision over the representations forward to it by the Centre seeking inclusion of the State's Rajbhar community in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Dinesh Pathak issued this direction on a plea moved by C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti moved through Advocate Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi.
Case title - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Divisional Manager v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court imposed Rupees Five Lakhs on an insurance company while noting that it kept the litigation alive for almost 20 years in connection with a Motor Accident Claims case.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh imposed the exemplary cost on the Insurance Company as they made the complainant (whose husband died in a motor accident in the year 1999) and her five minor children suffer beyond imagination.
Case Title: Amrita Nand @ Tribhuvan Arjariya @ Baba v. State of U.P. and Another.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court held that the Competency Certificate of a child witness is not mandatory if the child gives rational answers to the court's questions and his testimony is unshaken, inspires confidence of the Court.
"Nowhere it is provided that certificate regarding the competency of the child witness is mandatory. If it is recorded, it is so far so good. But, if the court has put the question to understand his intellect to understand the question and if he replied the rational answer and thereafter his examination was recorded without recording the certificate regarding the competency of the witness and he was thereafter cross examined by counsel for the accused and had replied satisfactorily and given rational answer, therefore, in above circumstances not appending the certificate by the trial judge regarding the competency of the witness is of no consequence and it will not make his statement inadmissible," Justice Mohd. Aslam observed.
Case title - Upendra v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of Raping and murdering a 75-year-old woman. The Court observed that the investigation in the case had not been up to the mark.
Acquitting the accused, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain noted that in the instant case, blood and other biological material were not collected from the accused of DNA profiling as per the requirement of section 53-A CrPC.
Case title - Pankaj Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while dismissing a 482 CrPC Application filed challenging the summoning order of the Magistrate.
Case title - Smt. Rekha Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Allahabad High Court observed that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application and not from the date of the order.
The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed thus as it opined that the order of the revisional court in granting maintenance to a lady and her minor children from the date of the order was illegal.
Case title - Khurshidurehman S. Rehman v. State of U P and another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (All) 126
The Allahabad High Court observed that there is no penal provision under any statute to bring the political parties within the clutches of enforcement authorities, in case, they fail to fulfill their promises as made in the election manifesto.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak further clarified that a political party as a whole can't be made liable under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for adopting corrupt practices of the election.
128. Order U/S 111 CrPC Must Contain Reasons Of Executive Magistrate's Satisfaction: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Titu v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 127
The Allahabad High Court explained the scope and necessary ingredients of an order drawn under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an Executive Magistrate.
Case title - Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that mere digitally signing the notice as contemplated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not the issuance of notice and that the notice needs to be sent/dispatched to the income tax assessee through paper or electronic devices and when it is so sent, that day would be considered as the date of issuance of notice.
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed thus as it further held that the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator.
Case title - Prakash @ Jai Prakash Ruhela v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of running a fake lottery to dupe Indian nationals and sending the money to handlers in Pakistan.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal opined that even though the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have not been initiated against the bail-applicant, prakash, however, since the matter pertains to national security and therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
Case title - Sajid @ Kale v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one Sajid @ Kale who was arrested in connection with an alleged recovery of 200 KG of prohibited flesh taking into account the fact that the co-accused, from whom the flesh was recovered, had been granted bail.
The Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan noted that the criminal history of the applicant had been adequately explained and the offences charged against the applicant are triable by the Magistrate. The Court also noted that he is in jail in this case since November 29, 2021, and the charge sheet had also been filed in the case.
Case title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh connected with Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 131
The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of murdering two persons (Husband-Wife) as it found that the prosecution couldn't prove charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav acquitted the accused as it came to the conclusion that evidence/statements of the sole eye-witness of the incident, PW-1 (daughter of the deceased husband-wife) was not credible and the same didn't inspire confidence.
Case title - Jeetu @ Amit Kumar Rawat And Anr. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lucknow And Anr.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 132
In a significant assertion, the Allahabad High Court observed that as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the rules framed by the state government thereunder, it is mandatory for the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia further observed that the Senior Citizen Act recognizes the vulnerable position of such citizens in the society and it intends to provide a mechanism to avoid their suffering and to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are secured and they are able to live in security and dignity.
Case title - Sanjay Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court quashed a summoning order issued by a Court of the Magistrate against the Editor-In-Chief of the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran, Sanjay Gupta for publishing an alleged defamatory news item.
The Bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi noted that in absence of specific allegations against the Chief Editor, the person holding the post can't be summoned.
Case Title - Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora v. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical Educat. And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh for initiating a departmental inquiry and thereafter terminating the service of a woman doctor 2 years after she sent her resignation.
Quashing the termination order passed against the woman and noting that the petitioner/woman was harassed, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary opined that any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible.
Case title - Smt. Kavita Sonkar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is not the function of the Court to adjudge or evaluate the suitability or desirability of a particular qualification that may be prescribed for a particular service.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while hearing a writ plea filed by one Kavita Sonkar who appeared and cleared the pre and main examination conducted by the State Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Review Officer.
Case title - Anirudh Kamal Shukla v. Union Of India Thru. Assistant Dir. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 136
While rejecting the anticipatory bail application of a person booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Allahabad High Court observed that for money-launderers Jail is the rule and bail is an exception.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observes thus as it stressed that money Laundering as an offence is an economic threat to national interest and is committed by the white-collar offenders who are deeply rooted in society and cannot be traced out easily.
Case title - Bindu v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Through Its R.G And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 137
The Allahabad High Court clarified that for seeking appointment as Judicial Officer/District Judge as per Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India, an Advocate has to be in continuous practice for not less than 7 years [with no break in between] as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge.
It may be noted that Article 233 of the Constitution of India deals with the Appointment of district judges and its subclause (2) mandates that a person, not already in the service of the Union or of the State, shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years, an advocate or a pleader, and is recommended by the High Court for the appointment.
Case title - Dr. Syed Kalbe Sibtain @ Noori v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court granted pre-arrest bail to Shia leader Dr. Syed Kalbe Sibtain @ Noori booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly ransacking police chowkis during the Anti-CAA protests that took place in December 2019.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted bail to Dr. Noori in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. It may be noted that Dr. Noori is the son of a renowned scholar and cleric of the Shia Community, Kalbe Sadiq who has been awarded Padma Bhushan.
Case title - The Assembly of God North India Balrampur and another v. State of U.P. through Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court observed that the market value of a property for the purpose of Section 47-A Of the Indian Stamp Act has to be determined with reference to the use to which the land is capable reasonably of being put to immediately or in the proximate future.
It may be noted that where it is found that an instrument is undervalued [which happened in the instant case], the procedure has been set forth under Section 47-A of the Act for assessing the correct stamp duty on the instrument.
Case title - X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 140
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that a Juvenile has a right to be released on bail where a similarly circumstanced adult offender has already been extended that liberty.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was of the further view that once the adult co-accused has been admitted to bail, there would be no justification to additionally test the case of the Juvenile with reference to the requirements of the proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case title - Rahul Kumar In Wria 323 Of 2022 v. State Of U.P Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Edu. Dept. U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) refused to interfere in the Single Judge order dated Jan 27, 2022, staying the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint 6800 additional candidates as primary assistant teachers in the state in addition to already appointed 69000 candidates.
With this, the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I endorsed the decision of the Single bench order of Jan 27, 2022, wherein it was concluded that the UP Government can't appoint more than 69000 candidates without issuing an advertisement regarding the same, since in the original advertisement issued by the state, only 69000 posts were intended to be filled.
Case title - Gopal Krishna Shankdhar @ Krishna Gopal Shankdhar v. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court observed that in rent disputes, it is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he/she should live or prescribe for him/her a residential standard of their own.
Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan 1996 (5) SCC 353, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also stressed that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and that there is no law that deprives the landlord of beneficial enjoyment of his/her property.
Case title - Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 143
The Allahabad High Court granted final anticipatory bail to Amazon Prime Video head Aparna Purohit who is facing an FIR registered in Lucknow, for allegedly depicting Hindu gods in a bad light in the web series Tandav.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and consequently, came to the conclusion that the applicant deserved to be granted anticipatory bail.
Case title - Smt. Shalinee Dubey @ Radhika Dubey v. Abhishek Tripathi @ Gopal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court observed that once an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings] has been allowed and uninterrupted litigation expenses are being paid to a party to a matrimonial dispute, he/she cannot move transfer application on the ground of distance and financial stress.
The Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed thus as it took into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhilasha Gupta vs. Harimohan Gupta 2021 9 SCC 730, wherein the Apex Court had taken the view that once the application under Section 24 of Act, 1955 is allowed and the particular matrimonial dispute is at the verge of the final decision, the transfer application can't be allowed.
146. Departmental Inquiry Against Govt Servant Can't Be Made A Casual Exercise: Allahabad High Court
Case title - State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue And 4 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court has said that a departmental inquiry against a government servant is not to be treated as a casual exercise and the principles of natural justice are required to be observed so as to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The Bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed thus as it upheld an order of the UP State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow setting aside the order of punishment passed by the State of UP against respondent no. 2 (deceased govt employee).
Case title - Anokhi Lal Second Bail v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court observed that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then such a long period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground for the purpose of grant of bail.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed thus while granting bail to one Anokhi Lal under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act who had been in jail since April 2018.
The Court relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Criminal Appeal No. 693/2021 and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb LL 2021 SC 56, wherein the Supreme Court had favored granting of bail to the accused taking into account their long period of incarceration.
Case title - Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others. v. State Of UP and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 147
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has stressed that the unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds that will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans, and that the foundations of our nation are more enduring.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while granting bail to 3 Kashmiri students who were arrested in October on sedition charges for allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan's victory in a T20 Cricket World Cup match against India.
Read more here: Kashmiri Students Accused Of Celebrating Pakistan's T20 Win Against India Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court
Case title: Anant Mishra @ Amit Mishra @ Surya Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 148
The Allahabad High Court observed that considering the testimony of witnesses if one accused is acquitted, no criminal proceeding can be sustained against co-accused on the same set of witnesses with the same allegation/case.
The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed thus as it quashed Section 364-A [Kidnapping for ransom] r/w Section 34 IPC charges against one Anant Mishra while taking into account the fact that on the basis of the testimony of same set of prosecution witnesses, the main accused in the matter were already acquitted by the court below.
Case title - Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 149
"In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth," the Allahabad High Court recently observed while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea with ₹50,000/- cost.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir issued this order while dealing with a PIL plea filed by one Ram Prasad Rajouriya seeking action two persons alleging that they had embezzled the money of the Government meant for the development of Gram Panchayat.
Case title - Fareed In Jail v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 150
Taking into account the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday granted bail to one Fareed who has already served over a total of 16 years in jail.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav also took into account the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Suleman v State of Uttar Pradesh| Criminal Appeal No.491/2022.
It may be noted that while in Saudan Singh Case (supra), expressing concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court, on Feb 25, laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail.
Case title - Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 151
Rejecting the theory put up by a convict of Right To Private defence, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) UPHELD the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to the convict/Raj Kumar (appellant no 1) in a 41-year-old murder case.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav however, SET ASIDE the conviction of appellant no. 2/Raj Kishore under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC in connection with the same murder case, as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove a prior meeting of minds between appellant no. 1 (Raj Kumar)/Murder Convict and appellant no. 2 (Raj Kishore).
Case title - Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 152
Taking into account the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), the Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to one Hari Bhawan who has already served over a total of 17 years in jail.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav also took into account the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Suleman v State of Uttar Pradesh| Criminal Appeal No.491/2022.
It may be noted that while in Saudan Singh Case (supra), expressing concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court, on Feb 25, laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail.
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Maoist Kheem Singh Bora Booked Under UAPA By UP Police
Case title - Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 153
The Allahabad High Court DENIED bail to an alleged Maoist leader Kheem Singh Bora who was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) in July 2019 from the Bareilly railway station.
Bora, who is carrying a reward of Rs 50,000 (as announced by Uttarakhand police in 2017), had moved to the High Court seeking bail in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act and 20/38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
However, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied him bail in view of the fact that he is wanted in five criminal cases and that he is stated to be the State Secretary of the banned organization Communist Party of India (Maoist) for the State of Uttarakhand.
Case title - Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 154
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two pleas seeking direction to the High Court administration to provide the benefit of the 10% reservation to the E.W.S. General Category candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.
Stressing that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi dismissed the pleas.
Case Title: M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 155
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has ruled that once the partner of the firm was available at the time of the survey, who must have signed the survey report, he could very easily request to correct the entries or refuse to sign the survey report, if it was not recorded as per his statement.
The applicant/assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling rough C.I. Castings. The business premises of the applicant were surveyed on August 18, 2010, where certain exhibits were seized. The books of account as well as an estimation of turnover were made, which was assailed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: M/s Tirupati Stationary Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 156
The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of a pre-deposit under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSME Act') would prevail over the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of Code of Civil Procedure and any other law that may allow the Courts' discretion while dealing with the requirement to pre-deposit a disputed amount in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 157
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision plea filed by the State Government against the discharge order passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in 2001 in favor of BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj in connection with a rape and kidnapping case.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the discharge order by taking into account the findings of the trial court that there was no evidence of allegation of kidnapping, loot or rape against the MP Maharaj and other accused persons.
Case title - Sunita And Others v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158
The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a wife who killed her husband in concert with two others (the life sentence awarded to them has also been confirmed) 18 years back by relying upon her 'voluntary' and 'trustworthy' extra-judicial confession.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi observed that since the extra-judicial confession made by the accused wife was corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence, and therefore, it concluded thus:
"The only hypothesis was that all three accused persons committed the gruesome murder of the deceased with planning and cool mind."
Case title - Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159
The High Court granted bail to a murder accused, who has been in jail for almost 7 years, as it noted that there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future and the fact witnesses/prosecution witnesses are not-cooperating in the trial.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan ordered while dealing with the third bail plea filed by one Rameshwar Pandey who has been in jail since May 27, 2015, in connection with a case registered against him u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC.
Case title - Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160
The High Court upheld the order of denial of bail to a Central Government servant, Irfan Shaikh accused of waging war against India by converting people to Islam by misusing his official position.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Brij Raj Singh affirmed the October 2021 order of the Special Judge, N.I.A./A.T.S./Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow denying bail to Shaikh by observing thus:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has found cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant that with the connivance of co-accused Umar Gautam and others, appellant is involved in anti-national activities of conversation by misusing his official position while working in Sign Language Training and Research Centre, New Delhi as Interpreter, we do no find any good ground to grant bail to the appellant".
Compassionate Appointment Not A Bonanza, Can't Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Considering various aspects relating to compassionate appointments, the High Court observed that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointments and that it can't be treated as a Bonanza.
This observation was made by the bench of Justice S. P. Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerjee while DISMISSING a special appeal filed by one Iqbal Khan challenging the decision of a single judge.
Case title - Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162
Denying anticipatory bail to a POCSO accused who allegedly raped a minor girl and her mother, the High Court observed that if anyone has been declared as an absconder/ proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while relying upon the apex court's ruling in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State Of Bihar LL 2021 SC 579, wherein the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna had held thus:
"In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail"
Case title - In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk)
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 163
The High Court HELD a man, who wrote a letter alleging that in the District Court, all the Judges, Officers, and employees are dishonest and that they have murdered the Constitution of India, guilty of contempt
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma held Contemptnor [Vikram Sharma (Clerk)] guilty while refusing to accept his unconditional apology for writing the letter stating the aforesaid in the year 2016.
Case Title: Sitaram v. State of U.P.
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 164
The High Court held that if an authority, conferred with discretionary powers by a statute, ignores or does not take into account considerations that are relevant to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be held invalid.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed,
"This would be more so where the statute conferring discretion on the authority has structured the discretion by expressly laying down the consideration which should be taken into account by the authority for exercise of the discretion. In such a case, if the exercise of the discretionary power has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account or by disregard of the relevant considerations required to be taken into account, the decision arrived at by the authority would be invalid."
Case Title: Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 165
The High Court ruled that registration under GST Act cannot be cancelled by merely describing the firm as 'bogus'.
The Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences since it takes away the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in business, adding that the revenue authorities have a heavy burden to establish the existence of facts that may allow for cancellation of registration under the GST Act.
Case title - Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 116 of 2019]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166
The High Court observed the discovery of the material object/crime weapon at the disclosure of the accused is important for the purposes of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.
Holding thus, the High Court, on Thursday SET ASIDE the life sentence of a murder-convict in a case that dates back to the year 2014, after concluding that merely on the strength of the recovery of the crime weapon on the pointing out of the appellant-accused CAN'T form the basis of his conviction.
Case title - Abhinay Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 167
Allowing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a father seeking visitation rights to meet his son presently living with his mother, the High Court observed the father is ENTITLED to visitation rights to meet his child.
Essentially, the child is presently living with his mother pursuant to a mutual agreement made between the husband and wife in a divorce suit decided on the basis of mutual consent. In the agreement, it was agreed the corpus/child will reside with his mother. However, the man/father moved to the Court alleging that he wasn't being allowed to meet the child.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Dharma
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168
The High Court found a man guilty of committing the rape of a 10-year-old girl in May 1988, i.e., over 33 years after the date of the incident. With this, the HC allowed the Government appeal filed in 1989 against the trial court's acquittal order by setting aside the same.
Significantly, the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also observed that a socially sensitized Judge is a better armor in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and complicated provisos.
Case title - Mahadevi v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 169
The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, (Health & Family Welfare) Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to ensure that in all post mortem forms/proforma taken out by the competent authorities, the status/column of the hyoid bone shall be specifically reflected.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot ordered thus as it took into account an affidavit of the Chief Medical Officer, Etawah stating that post mortem forms/proforma taken out do not depict the status/column depicting the state of the hyoid bone.
Case title - Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
The High Court observed that the Learning Driving License and Voter I.D. Card should not be taken into account while determining the age of a juvenile.
With this, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi quashed the order of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar rejecting an application moved on behalf of one Naushad Ali (Revisionist), booked under Rape, Penetrative Sexual Assault charges (under POCSO Act), for declaring him to be juvenile.
Case title - Abhay Pratap Mishra @ Ujjwal Mishra v. State Of U.P Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Home and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 171
The High Court observed that even a minor girl cannot be detained against her will or at the will of her father in a Protective Home.
Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta directed the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur, who sent a girl/alleged victim to a protective home, to call her from the Nari Niketan, ascertain her wishes and pass an appropriate order for her custody in accordance with law keeping the wishes of victim.
Case title - Chndra Prakash Sharma v. State Of U.P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 172
Stressing that the depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence of rape, the High Court denied bail to a man who committed rape on an 8-year-old girl.
Also Read - Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh further observed that little girls are worshipped in our country, but the cases of pedophilia are increasing.
The Court also said that a victim/female small child who experiences sexual abuse once in her life, tend to be more vulnerable to abuse in adult life, and in such cases, the healing is slow and systematic.
Case title - Govind v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 173
The High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of committing oral sex with a 8 year old girl as it noted that mere long detention in jail does not entitle an accused for bail.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan further noted that the victim/prosecutrix was about 8 years at the time of incident, and therefore, the Court said, at the stage of bail, it cannot be presumed that she gave the statement about oral sex under the influence of her parents.
Case title - Kumari Neha Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 174
The Uttar Pradesh Government last week opposed the recognition of same-sex marriage on the ground that such marriages are against Indian culture and Indic religions and shall be invalid according to Indian laws, which have been designed keeping in mind the concept/existence of a man and a woman.
The submission was made before the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav which was hearing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a mother seeking custody of her daughter (23 year old) alleging that she had been illegally detained by another woman, 22-year-old Sanjana (opposite party no. 4).
Case title - Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 175
The Allahabad High Court on Monday denied bail to a Nepali Citizen who has been accused of being in regular touch with 11 numbers pertaining to Pakistani nationals.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied him bail on the ground that the matter pertains to national security and the applicant is not an Indian national and therefore, he doesn't deserve to be released on bail.
Bail Applicant-Mohd. Saleem Khan was arrested by UP Police on February 28, 2021, and from his possession, three fake aadhaar cards (having different dates of birth), a Passport of Nepal, and other documents were recovered. He was later on booked under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC
Case title - Charan Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1171 of 2006]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 176
Observing that no cogent explanation was given to explain the chain of incriminating circumstances by the appellant-convict, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man who killed his wife in the year 2004.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain specifically observed that nothing had come on record from the side of the convict-appellant that he resided elsewhere or worked for a gain elsewhere and was not present at the scene of the crime on the night of the incident.
Case title - Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. along with two connected appeals
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 177
The High Court set aside the conviction of 3 murder accused in a 30 year old case as it found that the conviction recorded by the Trial court was based on untrustworthy last seen evidence.
The Court also opined that the accused had been seriously prejudiced on account of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer during the trial, and this omission had created a deep dent in the prosecution case.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Vires Of 'Uttar Pradesh Land Record Manual' With ₹10K Cost
Case title - Shailesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 178
The High Court dismissed a writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a declaration of the Uttar Pradesh Land Record Manual as ultra-vires the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and the Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner (Shailesh Kumar Mishra) on account of the non-maintainability of the plea.
Case title - Razia v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 475 of 2008]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 179
Reiterating the law laid down in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a divorced Muslim woman shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after the expiry of the period of iddat as long as she does not remarry.
The Bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed thus while allowing a revision plea filed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in May 2008, modifying the order of trial Court passed in Janury 2007.
Case title - Prem And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1826 of 1983]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 180
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted 4 accused in connection with a 42-year-old Dacoity case as the bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain suspected it to be a case of 'false implication' of the accused persons.
"...we have a strong suspicion, based on the facts of the case, the informant has taken the commission of dacoity in the village as an opportunity to falsely implicate persons with whom he had enmity i.e. the appellants along with other unknown dacoits," the bench remarked.
Case Title:Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station v. U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 181
The High Court observed that the statutory compliance of a pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act") by a 'promoter' before the entertainment of an appeal in an Appellate Tribunal is mandatory.
A Single-judge Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Agarwal, by an order dated 12.04.2022, rendered this observation while dismissing an appeal that sought to assail an order of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("the Appellate Tribunal") which had originally dismissed the appellant's appeal on grounds of non-payment of the mandatory deposit before entertainment of appeal as mandated under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act").
Case title - Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 182
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to take a decision for reorientation of the teacher-student ratio in the Schools being run by the Department Of Basic Education in Uttar Pradesh
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh perused the pleadings and noted that no particulars had been furnished by the petitioner, one Gaya Prasad.
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.
Case Title: Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 203
The High Court observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and anyone who approaches the Court must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed.
A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while dismissing an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") for quashing the entire criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.") and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title- U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 204
The High Court has held that the application of the term 'manufacturing process', which was added to the Employees State Insurance Act ('the Act') by virtue of the Employees State Insurance (Amendment Act), 1989 ('the Amendment Act'), would apply prospectively and would have no application prior to the said amendment coming into force.
A Single-judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia, sitting at Lucknow, observed thus while allowing a writ petition that primarily challenged multiple orders of the Employees State Insurance Corporation that demanded payment from the petitioners towards the employer's contribution in respect of the employees working in the accounts section of the PCF Press run by the petitioner.
Case title - Amit Kumar Jain v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3894 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 205
The High Court ordered the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar to personally monitor the investigation in an FIR by the wife of a Judicial Officer against an advocate, who accused the Judicial Officer of taking a bribe to pass favorable orders.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar however refused to transfer the case to any other investigating agency as the Court opined that the allegations were neither specific nor are substantiated and that, there is no reason to doubt the impartiality of the Investigating Officer in the matter.
Case title - Namaha v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 206
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking direction to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to disclose his full and actual name in the public domain, with Rs. 1 Lakh Cost.
The PIL plea moved by one Namaha also sought a direction to CM Yogi Adityanath to take the oath of office and secrecy under his real name and to refrain from using the word 'Yogi' as a title in his official communication.
Case title - Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11201 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The High Court has observed that non-reporting of the seizure forthwith, as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., shall not ipsofacto render such seizure illegal particularly as no period is specified and its consequences have not been provided.
Case title - Smt. Sakshi Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 316 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 208
The High Court has observed that before taking any decision regarding the transfer of a criminal case, not only the convenience of the applicant/ complainant/ informant/ victim is to be taken into consideration, but the convenience of the accused and prosecution is also to be taken into consideration.
To observe thus, the Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery also relied upon the recent ruling of the Allahabad HC in the case of Shailendra Kumar Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and another [Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 285 of 2021].
Case title - Smt.Kiran Singh v. State Of U.P. And Anr [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 896 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 209
In a significant observation, the High Court ruled that there is no bar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to a wife, even against whom, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed.
The Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh further stressed that it would be very harsh to refuse maintenance on the ground of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in favor of the husband.
Provision Of De Novo Trial Is Mandatory For Any Accused Summoned U/S 319 CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3716 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The High Court has observed that the provision of de novo trial is mandatory for the accused summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh stressed that the accused brought under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has to be given a fair trial in view of Section 319 (4) (a) Cr.P.C.
Case title - Smt Lavi Choudhari v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 209 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 211
The High Court ordered protection for a married couple who had a love marriage against the wishes of the family of the girl.
In view of the fact that the Girl has been selected for the post of Sub Inspector in the U.P. Police, however, her father was not providing her the original education documents, the Court directed the S.P., Moradabad to procure all documents from the custody of the father and hand the same over to the Girl.
Case title - M/S Rohit Surfactants Private Limited v. M/S Kanodia Salt Company Ltd.And Another [CIVIL REVISION No. - 448 of 2012]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 212
The High Court has observed that a clerical/procedural mistake that has occurred in the verification of pleadings can be rectified by moving the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the very purpose of Rule 17 in Order VI CPC is to give liberty to a party in a suit to amend his pleading at any stage in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
Case title - Chaman Mangla v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1066 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The High Court has observed that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on the presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true.
At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant a conviction, noted the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
Case title - Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. N.C.B. along with a connected matter
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 214
Dismissing two bail pleas filed by Accused under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, the High Court has observed a minor discrepancy in the weight of the sample sent to the Forensic Laboratory cannot shake the roots of the prosecution case.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to the two Accused [Chhotey Lal and Kavinder Kumar] booked under
Sections 8(C)/18/29 of the NDPS Act after they were arrested from the general bogey of a Train for allegedly being in possession of a total of 7 KG of opium.
Case title - Ram Autar And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 879 of 1986]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 215
The High Court set aside the life sentence of two in a 42-year-old murder case giving them a benefit of doubt as it noted that the prosecution case flowed from highly interested witnesses.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shamim Ahmed sensed a suspicion shrouding the prosecution case, which gave the Court, a strong feeling that the informant party had grabbed the opportunity of an occurrence, perhaps an accident, to spin a story against its rivals.
Case title - Saurabh Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3135 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 216
The High Court refused to interfere in a plea challenging a magistrate's order dismissing an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking FIR against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for his tweet, which allegedly insulted the Indian flag.
Kamra had tweeted a morphed picture of the Supreme Court replacing the tricolor atop it with the flag of a political party.
It may be noted that last year a Varanasi Court had upheld the order of the Magistrate in by dismissing the criminal revision plea filed by a local Lawyer Saurabh Tiwari. Now, challenging both these orders, a plea under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was moved by Tiwari before the HC.
Case title - Rajkumar Yadav v. State Thru C.B.I./ACB Lucknow [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4319 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 217
The High Court denied bail to a former govt Junior Assistant/Clerk in connection with an alleged Rs.1500/- crores scam pertaining to the financial irregularities committed with criminal intent in the work of "Gomti River Channelization Project" and "Gomti River Front Development" by the Irrigation Department.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied bail to Rajkumar Yadav as it noted that it was prima-facie found that he was also the part and parcel of the chain of corruption having been committed causing a heavy loss to the State Exchequer.
Case Title- Dr. J.S. Yadav v. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 218
The Lucknow Bench of the High Court expressed shock over non-compliance of a direction issued by a Division Bench of the High Court, as long back as in the year 2001.
"It is a case where the appellant has taken recourse to the judicial proceedings to thwart the course of justice and a direction which was issued by the Division Bench in the year 2001 has not been complied with till date. This in itself is a shocking state of affairs which does hurts the judicial conscience and has a deleterious effect on the public at large" Bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh remarked.
Case Title: Jaya Prada Nahata v. Mohd. Azam Khan And 9 Others [ELECTION PETITION No. - 10 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 219
The High Court dismissed an election petition filed by actress Jaya Prada challenging the election of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan from the Rampur parliamentary constituency.
The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh dismissed the plea for want of prosecution that is to say in the absence of the counsel for Jaya Prada. All pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
In her election plea, Jaya Prada had alleged that at the time of his election, Azam Khan held the post of the Chancellor of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University, which was an office of profit. She had also alleged that Azam Khan made religious appeals to get votes.
Case title - Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 220
"Justice is not for the accused only, justice should also be done with the victim," remarked the Allahabad High Court as it dismissed 3 pleas filed by gang-rape accused seeking transfer of their trial from Jhansi District to any other district.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed that if a case is transferred, it will add insult to the injury to the gang-rape victim.
"If the case is transferred from District Jhansi to any other district, it will be inconvenient for the victim, witnesses, prosecution and for the society as a whole because the case sought to be transferred relates to gang rape," the Bench remarked as it dismissed their pleas.
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.
Case title - Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271
In a significant order, the High Court asked the UP Govt as to what is the requirement to appoint so many Additional Advocate Generals and Chief Standing Counsels at Allahabad High Court (both Benches) to defend the State when already more than 400 State lawyers are impaneled by it.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also took expectation to the practice of outsourcing the lawyers on behalf of the State and its various authorities and corporations wherein a big amount of taxpayers' money is being used.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a contempt petition in a land acquisition matter. When the court reserved its Judgment, the Additional Advocate General M. C. Chaturvedi made a request that his appearance be recorded not only for the State of U.P. but also for the Ghaziabad Development Authority.
Case title - Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272
The High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence awarded to three murder convicts for killing one Kadhiley in April 2004. The Court also underscored that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav further stressed that the Court the criminal jurisprudence in India recognizes that the eyesight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks.
"Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also," the Court said as it discarded the argument of the convicts that there was no light at the place of occurrence and therefore, there was no possibility of identification of the assailants in the instant case.