Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: May 2 To May 8, 2022

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

Orders/Judgments of the Week

Allahabad HC Grants Pre Arrest Bail To Peace Party President For Allegedly Threatening To Kill CM Yogi Adityanath In 2016

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.

"No Indian Lady Can Share Her Husband": Allahabad High Court Refuses To Discharge Man Accused Of Abetting Wife's Suicide

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."

"Heinous Crime Accused Can't Complain Of Violation Of Article 21 When He Isn't Cooperating In Trial": Allahabad HC Denies Bail

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."

Proceedings U/S 145 CrPC Has To Be Discontinued If Civil Suit For Possession Or Declaration Of Title Of Same Property Is Pending: Allahabad HC

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.

"Victim Narrated Her Ordeal In Words & Signs": Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To 62 Y/O Man Accused Of Raping 3 Y/O Girl

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.

No One Can Be 'Summoned' To Police Station Orally By Subordinate Police Officials Sans Station Incharge's Approval: Allahabad High Court

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.

Life Sentence Means Imprisonment Till Last Breath; Court Can't Fix A Period Of Incarceration Of Life Convict: Allahabad High Court

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.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Upgradation Of Overall Working Conditions, Pay Structure, Etc Of CBI Prosecution Cadre

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.

"Using Loudspeakers In Mosque Not A Fundamental Right": Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Nod To Play Azan On Loudspeakers

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.

Reassessment Order Not Valid If Notice By Assessing Authority Is Without Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

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.

"Charges Not Specific": Allahabad HC Dismisses Contempt Plea Over Use Of Loudspeakers In Temples, Mosques Across UP

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.

Obtaining Favourable Orders By Foul Means Like Back-Stabbing Solemn Court Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost

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.

Influencing Court By Invoking Religious Sentiments Not Good For Temple Of Justice: Allahabad HC Dismisses Contempt Plea

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.

Updates from Allahabad High Court/UP Courts

"Burning Issues Emerge From Madrasas": PIL In Allahabad HC Seeks Merger Of UP Madrasas With State's Secondary Education Board

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to merge all Madrasas of Uttar Pradesh with the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Siksha Parishad and the UGC so that the Madrasa students can come out of the rigid religious mindset.

The PIL plea has been moved by petitioner in person Saher Naqvi wherein she has stated that since common education is not being provided to the Madrasa students and only religious knowledge is imparted to them, therefore, it has the potential to harm the society.

Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Reply On Ex-MLA Mukhtar Ansari's Chargesheet Quashing Plea In Funds Misappropriation Case

Case title - Mukhtar Ansari @ Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9722 of 2022]

The High Court directed the State Government to file its counter affidavit within a period of six weeks on a petition filed by former MLA Mukhtar Ansari (presently in jail) seeking to quash a charge sheet filed against him by the Uttar Pradesh police in connection with a case of misappropriation of MLA Funds fund in the year 2012-13.

This order has been issued by the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi who was nominated by the Chief Justice to hear this plea after Justice Rajiv Gupta recused to hear the plea on April 20, 2022.

"Advocate General's Office Can't Be Left Vacant": Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt To Take A Decision To Appoint AG By May 16

Dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerned with the appointment of the Advocate General in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court directed the State Government to take a decision in this regard by May 16, 2022.

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further stressed that the office of Advocate General cannot be permitted to be left vacant.

Allahabad High Court Issues Non-Bailable Warrant Against NOIDA CEO Ritu Maheshwari In Contempt Plea

The High Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and IAS Officer Ritu Maheshwari after she failed to appear in court in a contempt case related to land acquisition.

The Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava has directed the police to arrest her and present her in court for the next hearing on May 13. This order has been passed in a contempt plea filed by one Manorama Kuchhal and another person.