Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: June 2024 [Citations 367-415]

M/S Pragyason Constructions Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 367

National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 368

Punjab National Bank Earlier Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sanjeevani Shiksha Samiti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 369

Shekhar Kapoor And 10 Others v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 370

Rajesh And Others vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 371

Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 372

Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373

Dr. Bijoy Kundu v. Smt. Piu Kundu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374

M/S Deep Builders And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 375

Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 376

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377

Etvir Limbu vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378

Shiv Ram vs. Smt.Pinki And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380

Prof. Soniya Nityanand And Others v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381

Mamta Kapoor and Another v. Vinod Kumar Rai 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 382

Naziya Ansari And Another vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383

Archana Singh Gautam vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 384

Shiva Pankaj And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Gupta And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

Pradum Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 387

Mrs. Ameena Jung and Anr. vs. Faridi Waqf Thru. Mutwalli Mrs. Anush Faridi Khan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 388

Puneet Mishra Alias Puneet Kumar Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 389

The State of UP and 5 others v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police)

M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391

Vimal Rajput vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392

Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393

Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394

State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399

Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401

Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404

Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410

Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411

Hem Chandra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412

Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P and connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414

Kailash v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH

[Mining Lease] Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Only When Documents Found Fabricated: Allahabad High Court Directs Refund Of Rs. 90 Lakhs

Case Title: M/S Pragyason Constructions Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 21022 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 367

The Allahabad High Court has held that earnest money deposited for mining lease can only be forfeited when the documents of an individual are found to be false or fabricated upon investigation.

The bench comprising of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji held that “forfeiture of earnest money could be ordered only when, upon the verification, any document or certificate filed by an individual was found false, fabricated or incorrect”.

Arbitral Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Incorrect Application Of Law Or Misinterpretation Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 368

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 368

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.

Provisions Of Rent Control Act Inapplicable In Determining Mesne Profits Once Tenancy Is Terminated U/S 106 Of Transfer of Property Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Punjab National Bank Earlier Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sanjeevani Shiksha Samiti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 369 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 76 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 369

The Allahabad High Court has held that once tenancy is terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provisions of the Rent Control Act would not apply in determining mesne profits with regard to rent payable for the property. It was held that the prevalent market rate would be considered while determining the rate for the mesne profit.

Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “once after service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1992, tenancy is terminated, the status of tenant would only be trespasser and mesne profit shall be determined, based upon market rate prevailing in the area. Provisions of Rent Control Act would not be applicable.”

Valid Electricity Connection Cannot Be Disrupted Indefinitely While Replacing Overhead Wires With Underground Cables: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shekhar Kapoor And 10 Others v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 370 [WRIT - C No. - 11053 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 370

The Allahabad High Court has observed that disruption of valid electricity connection cannot be done indefinitely only because overhead wires were to be replaced with underground cables.

While widening the roads under the Smart City Development Project in Moradabad, the respondent authorities had removed several overhead wires, which lead to disruption of electricity supply to the shops of the petitioners. Further, a portion of certain building situated at the station road, where the shops were situated, was demolished and the debris had been left by the authorities.

'Prosecution Couldn't Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Convicts In 44 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - Rajesh And Others vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 371

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 371

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside the conviction of three murder convicts sentenced to life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in June 1982 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this order while allowing the criminal appeal filed by three convicts, two of whom are now in their 60s.

[Arbitration Act] Arbitrator Obligated U/S 31(5) To Deliver Signed Copies Of Award To Parties, Irrespective Of No Specific Requests: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 372 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 264 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 372

The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

“Section 31(5) of the Act unequivocally imposes an obligation upon the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party involved in the arbitration. This statutory duty is not contingent upon a party's request for the award; rather, it is an imperative that must be fulfilled by the Arbitrator irrespective of any such request. The failure to comply with this statutory obligation can lead to significant procedural irregularities, potentially undermining the arbitral process and the enforceability of the award,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

S.11 Hindu Marriage Act | Parents Of Husband Can Contest Proceedings For Declaring Marriage Void After His Death: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 394 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373

The Allahabad High Court has held that after the death of the husband who had filed for declaration (of marriage as void) under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, his parents have a right to pursue the proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as such matrimonial disputes include questions of inheritance.

While hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the order of the Family Court, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“the Legal Representative who is not "either of the parties" and was not one of the spouse to the marriage in question can pursue the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act that marriage should be declared void and therefore, their application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC would be maintainable.”

S.13 Hindu Marriage Act | Once Finding Of Cruelty Recorded, Divorce To Be Granted Irrespective Of Proof Of Desertion: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Bijoy Kundu v. Smt. Piu Kundu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 31 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the finding regarding cruelty has been recorded by the Family Court, marriage between the parties ought to be dissolved. The Court held that only because desertion is not proved, the marriage cannot be restituted.

The Court held that the grounds of divorce provided in Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act are mutually exclusive and if any one of the grounds is made out, the divorce ought to be granted. It held that use of the word 'or' after each ground makes them disjunctive.

[UP Minor Minerals Act] Forfeiture Of Deposit Not Authorised Once Letter Of Intent Is Cancelled: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Deep Builders And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 375 [WRIT - C No. - 33710 of 2021]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 375

While examining the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that once a Letter of Intent has been issued for a mining lease and a security deposit been made, the relevant authority does not possess the power to forfeit such deposit made by the lessee, upon cancellation of the Letter of Intent.

“Upon a consideration of the submissions made and upon a careful scrutiny of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2017 and 2019, we are unable to discern any power of forfeiture,” held the Division Bench comprising of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Facilitation Council Award For Lack Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 19 MSME Act

Case Title: Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 376[WRIT - C No. - 10525 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 376

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSME Act.

Admission Made In Written Statement Cannot Be Withdrawn By Way Of Amendment Application Made Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Rama Raman and 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 38 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 377

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that admissions made in written statements cannot be withdrawn by an amendment even in the case of a typographical error or a change in arguing counsel.

Opposite party filed a case in the small causes court in which the revisionists had filed a written statement on 05.02.2014. Thereafter, it was found that due to a typographical error, the documents annexed with the written statement contained the word 'tenant' rather than the phrase 'license deed'.

'Dekhte Hi Goli Maar Di Jayegi' & 'Trespassers Will Be Shot' Signboards Outside Defence Stations Not Proper: Allahabad HC

Case title - Etvir Limbu vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18482 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 378

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that putting messages like 'dekhte hi goli maar di jayegi' and 'trespassers will be shot' on signboards erected outside installations/stations is not proper and that the Central Government should use “light words” instead to convey such strict warnings.

A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav said that while it is true that trespassers are not allowed to enter the premises of armed forces for the purpose of security, such messages/words have a detrimental impact on children, so the Central Government may take caution in writing these types of words.

[Matrimonial Dispute] Allahabad HC Orders Forensic Examination Of CDs Filed By Husband Alleging Wife's Involvement In Pornography

Case title - Shiv Ram vs. Smt.Pinki And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

The Allahabad High Court directed a forensic examination of CDs/DVDs submitted by the husband, which allegedly contain sexual videos implicating his wife.

The husband seeks to present this evidence supporting his suit for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and a case under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of his two minor daughters.

[Central Excise Act] Fixing Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Very Short Notice Violative of Opportunity of Hearing U/S 33A: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s Avshesh Kumar v. Union of India and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380 [WRIT TAX No. - 570 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 380

The Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing within the period of a week would be violative of the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.

Section 33A of the Central Excise Act provides that opportunity of hearing be given to a party in a proceeding under the Act, if desired by them. Further, it lays down the procedure for granting adjournment in adjudication proceedings to either of the parties on the condition that a single party can only be granted a total of three adjournments during such proceedings.

Allahabad High Court Permits VC, Executive Council Members Of KGMC To Move Discharge Applications Before Contempt Court

Case Title: Prof. Soniya Nityanand And Others v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 125 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381

While dealing with a special appeal against issuance of notices by the contempt Court, the Allahabad High Court permitted the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow to move for discharge of notices before the Contempt Court since the contempt proceedings are still pending.

Rule 5 of Chapter- XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provides for issuance of notice of charges in contempt cases where a prima facie case of contempt of Court is made out against the person concerned within a year of alleged act of contempt of court.

[Commercial Courts Act] Disputes Related To Immovable Property Used Exclusively For Trade Are 'Commercial Disputes: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mamta Kapoor and Another v. Vinod Kumar Rai 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 382 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 4127 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 382

The Allahabad High Court, while considering the case of a hotel, has held that a dispute related to an immovable property that is used exclusively for the purpose of trade or commerce would fall under the ambit of a 'Commercial Dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

“Agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce fall under the purview of “commercial disputes” as definer by Section 2(c)(vii) of the CC Act. This categorization highlights the specific nature of such agreements and their inherent connection to commercial activities,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.

Adult's Right To Solemnise Marriage Or Live With Person Of Choice Protected Under Article 21: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Naziya Ansari And Another vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9396 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 383

In a significant remark, the Allahabad High Court has said that no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish as “this is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution”

Observing thus, a bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also criticised a Judicial Magistrate for sending an adult woman (petitioner no. 1) to her uncle's home after the uncle (respondent no. 3) lodged an FIR against her husband (petitioner no. 2).

Cheques Of Erstwhile 'Allahabad Bank' Invalid After Sept 30 2021, Their 'Dishonor' Won't Attract Offence U/S 138 NI Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Archana Singh Gautam vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 384

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 384

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that cheques from the erstwhile 'Allahabad Bank' (which merged with 'Indian Bank' on April 1, 2020) became 'invalid' after September 30, 2021. Consequently, the dishonour of such cheques will not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed thus in light of the mandate of Section 138 NI Act, the proviso (a) of which states that a cheque must be presented to the Bank 'during its validity'.

Petition U/S 483 CrPC Seeking Direction To Family Court For Expeditious Disposal Of S. 125 CrPC Plea Is Maintainable: Allahabad HC

Case title - Shiva Pankaj And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

The Allahabad High Court has held that an application filed under Section 483 CrPC seeking a direction to the Family Court to expedite the disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC, would be maintainable.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi clarified that while deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Therefore, a Section 483 CrPC application seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable.

Orders Appealable U/S 14A Of SC/ST Act Can't Be Challenged By Filing A Plea U/S 482 Of CrPC: Allahabad HC Reiterates

Case title - Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Gupta And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 386

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that in cases where an appeal against an order would lie under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the aggrieved person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to challenge that order.

Perusing the mandate of Section 14-A of the Act, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the provision starts with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)” and that in In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, another full bench of the HC has held that “while the constitutional and inherent powers of this Court are not “ousted” by Section 14A, they cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie under Section 14A”.

Complete Penetration With Emission Of Semen & Rupture Of Hymen Not Necessary To Constitute Rape: Allahabad HC

Case title - Pradum Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 387

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 387

The Allahabad High Court has observed that to constitute an offence of rape, complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen and the rupture of the hymen is not necessary.

Observing thus, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan rejected the bail petition of a man accused of committing rape and oral sex with a 10-year-old girl.

Beneficiaries Of Waqf To Be Impleaded In Matters Related To Sale Of Waqf Property: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Ameena Jung and Anr. vs. Faridi Waqf Thru. Mutwalli Mrs. Anush Faridi Khan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 388 [CIVIL REVISION No. - 22 of 2022]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 388

The Allahabad High Court has held that the beneficiaries of a Waqf have the right to be impleaded in matters relating to the sale of property of the Waqf. Justice Jaspreet Singh held that such beneficiaries were covered by the concept of necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court held that “where a mutawalli was seeking the permission to de-list certain properties from the register of Waqf then is such a case, at least those parties who, in the knowledge of the mutawalli, were the direct beneficiaries and would be affected ought to have been impleaded.”

State Machinery Should Cancel Licence Of Journalists Involved In Blackmailing, Anti-Social Acts: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Puneet Mishra Alias Puneet Kumar Mishra And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 389

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 389

The Allahabad High Court said the State Machinery should cancel the licenses of journalists who are involved in anti-social activities like blackmailing the common man to get financial benefits in the garb of their licenses.

A bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed made this observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against two persons, a journalist and a newspaper distributor by profession, who are facing a case under Sections 384/352/504/505 IPC, 3(2)(Va), and 3(1) (S) SC/ST Act.

Person Seeking Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Given Second Chance To Qualify Physical Efficiency Test After Having Failed Once: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The State of UP and 5 others v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police) [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 390

The Allahabad High Court has held that no second chance can be granted to a person seeking compassionate appointment for qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test, having failed it in the first try.

Holding that compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of recruitment, the bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that

“It is essentially to reach immediate succor to a bereaved family. In other words, the sudden passing away of a government servant creates a financial vacuum and it is to lend a helping hand to the genuinely needed members of the bereaved family that an appointment is provided. It is never meant to be a source of conferring any status or an alternate mode of recruitment.”

Lawyers To Ensure Dignity Of Court Even When Challenging Its Order: Allahabad High Court Deprecates Disrespectful Drafting Of Review Application

Case Title: M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391 [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 69 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 391

The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of disrespectful drafting of review applications which lower the dignity of the Court.

While hearing a review application against his earlier order, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,

“Although a litigant is well within its right to challenge the validity of any order in accordance with the law and in case the order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record, the litigant would be well within its right to say so, but while assailing the orders passed by the Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are expected to act with some sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while contending that the order passed by the Court suffers from a patent error.”

Restrictions On Grant Of Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Do Not Apply To Constitutional Courts: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vimal Rajput vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 392

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the restrictions on the grant of bail contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) only apply to the special courts dealing with NDPS cases and do not apply to the Constitutional Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court).

“I am of the considered view that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts,” a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi concluded.

UP Recognised Basic School Rules: Allahabad HC Upholds Deemed Approval Of Docs Submitted By Appointee If No Response From Authority Within 30 Days

Case Title: Smt. Kavita Singh v. State of U.P. And 5 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393 [WRIT - A No. - 16849 of 2019]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 393

The Allahabad High Court, while examining the case of appointment of a principal, has held that if documents sent for approval to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) are not approved within a period of 30 days, then as per Rule 10 of the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules, 1978, they shall be held to have been approved.

“It has not been disputed that the documents were sent for approval and after a lapse of 30 days, if no communication has been received, then as per the Rule 10(5)(iii) of Rules, 1978, it will be deemed that the approval has been granted,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.

'Sexual Offences' Under IPC Are Women-Centric To Protect Dignity & Honour But Male Partner Not Always At Fault: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394

The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, emphasizing that while laws on sexual offences are rightly women-centric, it does not mean that the male partner is always at fault.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla noted that the burden of proof in such cases lies with both the complainant and the accused.

The bench stated, “No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them. It is unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keep on permitting him on so called false pretext of marriage.”

1982 Murder Case | 'Faulty' Investigation, 'Contradictions' In Testimonies Of PWs: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Accused

Case title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquittal of the 3 accused in a 1982 murder case, noting that the faulty investigation in the matter had cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.

Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offence Sans Magistrate's Permission Is Illegal; Subsequent Nod Is Immaterial: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul And 27 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 396

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by the police without prior permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, and subsequent permission by the Magistrate cannot cure this illegality.

Referring to the provision under sub Section (2) of Section 155 of CrPC, a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that asking permission of the Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence is mandatory in nature, and if such permission isn't taken, merely accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognisance of the offence does not validate the proceeding.

UP Anti-Conversion Law Won't Achieve Its Purpose If Prosecutions Under 2021 Act Are Frequently Interfered With: Allahabad HC

Case title - Ruksar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 397

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Anti-Conversion Law, enacted in 2021, will fail to achieve its intended purpose if the courts frequently interfere with prosecutions under the Act at their initial stage.

Emphasizing that such interferences, especially at the initial stages of legal proceedings, could undermine the effectiveness of the law, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked thus:

“The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. If there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021, the legislation which is still young and designed to curtail a mischief in society that is rife it would be bogged down and fail to achieve its purpose.”

Administrators Often Lose Objectivity When Visited With Judicial Command: Allahabad HC On Rejection Of Compassionate Appointment Claim After Filing Of Writ

Case Title: Aman Pathak v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398 [WRIT - A No. - 15485 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 398

While dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Administrators must not panic or retaliate when faced with a judicial command, asking them to perform their duties. Sadly, they often do.”

The Court observed that the Authorities, in the case of the petitioner, had passed the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment only after show cause notice had been issued by the Court. The Court remarked that often when judicial orders are issued to administrative authorities, they might forget to do their duty and want to teach a lesson to the person who brought a writ on them.

[U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules] Employee Shall Be Entitled To Pay If Initial Approval Of Appointment Not Recalled: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399 [WRIT - A No. - 23843 of 2018]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 399

The Allahabad High Court has held that under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.

“The salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld or stopped unless the petitioners are suspended or dismissed from service,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal.

'Documents Forged': Allahabad HC Dismisses NEET Aspirant's 'Torn OMR Sheet' Plea, NTA Mulls Action Against Her

Case title - Ayushi Patel vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Education/ Deptt. Of Higher Education, New Delhi And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 400

The Allahabad High Court DISMISSED (being not pressed) a writ petition moved by a NEET aspirant (Ayushi Patel) after it was revealed that she submitted forged documents in her petition alleging the NTA failed to declare her result. In her plea, the candidate also claimed that her OMR answer sheet was torn.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan dismissed the petitioner's petition, deeming it a “really sorry state of affairs” that she filed the petition enclosing the forged and fictitious documents.

Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Not State Under Article 12, Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against It: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Prem Chand v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401 [WRIT - A No. - 19131 of 2023]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 401

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram as it is not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no statue regulating the functions of the Ashram or empower State to control its affairs.

Justice J.J. Munir relied on the decisions in Suresh Ram v. State of U.P. and Ram Bachan Singh v. Chief Executive Officer Khadi Gramodyog & Others where the Allahabad High Court has held that Shri Gandhi Ashram, parent body of Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerut is not state within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ is maintainable against the Ashram.

Accused's Act Of Absconding Alone Doesn't Establish His Guilt: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Conviction In 25 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Setting aside a conviction in a 25-year-old murder case, the Allahabad High Court has observed that only on the basis of the absconding of the accused, he cannot be held to be guilty.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty, and that too, for a serious offence like murder.

Gravity Of Offence Not A Relevant Consideration While Dealing With Bail Plea Of Juvenile Accused: Allahabad HC

Case title - X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant factor in granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Perusing Section 12 of the Act, which lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender, the Court noted that the Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as grounds to reject the bail.

'Highly Dangerous To Convict Him On This Kind Of Evidence' Allahabad HC Acquits Man In 46 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - Indra Pal vs. State 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2751 of 1980]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 404

While underscoring the critical importance of robust and credible evidence in securing convictions, the Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man previously convicted of murder in a case dating back 46 years.

“We think it is highly dangerous to convict the appellant on this kind of evidence when there are strong circumstances to show that the testimony of the sole eyewitness needs corroboration, either from ocular testimony or documentary/scientific evidence,” a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.

Court Can't Add Or Subtract Sections In Police Report While Taking Cognizance Of Offences U/S 190 CrPC: Allahabad HC

Case title - Usha vs. State of U.P. and Another along with connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 405

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the offences cannot be added or subtracted by the concerned Magistrate or Judge in the police report when they are being considered under Section 190 CrPC.

A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj reasoned that at the stage of taking cognisance of offences based on the police report, no hearing is provided to the complainant or the accused and hence, adding the offences without hearing the accused “would certainly prejudice them”.

Use Of Blank Printed Proforma For Passing Judicial Order Is Unacceptable: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Cognizance & Summoning Order

Case title - Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 406

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the use of blank printed proforma for passing the judicial order by the Magistrate is unacceptable, being indicative of nonapplication of judicial mind in passing the order.

“While passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner,” a bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi said.

Prosecution Failed To Prove Chain Of Incriminating Circumstances: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal In 42 Year Old Murder Case

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Kailash Nath 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 407

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 42-year-old murder case, emphasising that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused respondent.

The Court also stressed that to attract the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must prove that a fact was especially in the knowledge of the accused, and it has to be seen whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

NDPS Act | Can Convict Accused Based On Testimony Of Police/DRI Witnesses If It Inspires Confidence: Allahabad HCv

Case title - Baijnath Prasad Sah Kanoo vs. Union Of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 408

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused's conviction in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act may safely be based on the testimony of police witnesses or witnesses of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) if such testimony inspires confidence.

With this, a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan upheld the conviction of 3 men who were found guilty of the offences under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

UP Police Exam Paper Leak | 'Nothing Incriminating Recovered From His Possession': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To An Accused

Case title - Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 409

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Monu Sharma @ Monu Pandit, who was held earlier this year for allegedly trying to manipulate a police constable examination and leaking the question papers.

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted him relief, noting that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession and that the co-accused (Monu Kumar and Rajneesh Ranjan), who were also apprehended along with the applicant, have already been released on bail by the High Court.

Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Man Who Secretly Took Daughter's Blood Sample For Private DNA Test To Deny Paternity, Avoid Maintenance

Case title - Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410

The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a man, a doctor by profession, who secretly took his daughter's blood sample for a private DNA test to challenge her paternity, avoid paying maintenance to her and to show that her wife was living in adultery.

Calling the said DNA report obtained by the applicant “nothing but trash”, which cannot be relied upon, a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi dismissed the man's plea to order a fresh DNA test of the applicant and his daughters.

Order On Miscellaneous Applications U/S 17 Regarding Court Fee Is Appealable U/S 18 SARFAESI Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411 [WRIT - C No. - 18388 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 411

The Allahabad High Court has held that order on miscellaneous application regarding the court fee is appealable under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Justice Ajit Kumar held that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for appeals, does not specify that appeals can only be filed against final orders and not interlocutory orders. Observing that order under Section 17 may be interlocutory in nature, the Court held that remedy of appeal under Section 18 ought to be availed against such orders.

Acquisitions Made Under UP Avas Vikas Act But Not Finalized Till January 1, 2014 Are Governed By Land Acquisition Act 2013: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Hem Chandra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412 [WRIT - C No. - 12796 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 412

The Allahabad High Court has held that acquisitions made under U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 prior to commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which have not been finalized till 01.01.2014 shall be governed by the Act of 2013 for the purposes of determination of compensation to the landowners.

Section 55 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 empowers the Board, thereunder, to acquire any land for any purpose under the Adhiniyam as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Mechanical Addition Of S. 302 IPC 'Unsustainable': Allahabad HC Explains When Trial Courts Can Add Murder Charge In Dowry Death Cases

Case title - Rammilan Bunkar vs. State of U.P and connected appeals 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 413

The Allahabad High Court recently took exception to the routine and mechanical addition of Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) by trial court judges in the state to the cases already involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment without any supporting material.

A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that the mechanical addition of a murder charge (Section 302 IPC) to the cases involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment was making the situation “more grim and serious”.

[Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 8348 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 414

The Allahabad High Court has held that amendments and additional reliefs permissible under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be maintainable in the form of a fresh application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“Where in the application under Section 12, permissible amendment in view of subsequent developments or otherwise is made and additional permissible relief is sought, a fresh application under Section 23 would be maintainable,” held Justice Jayant Banerjee.

India's Majority Population Would Be In Minority One Day If Conversions In Religious Congregations Not Stopped: Allahabad HC

Case title - Kailash v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 415

The Allahabad High Court observed that if the current trend of conversions during religious congregations is permitted to continue, the majority population of the country could eventually find itself in the minority one day.

With this observation, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated that the religious congregations, where conversions are occurring and where the religions of the citizens of India are being changed, should be immediately stopped.