Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 15 To May 21

Prashant Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 148

Ranjeeta @ Ravita vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149

Manas Vatsa vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 150

Waseem Khan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 151

Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Azaj Ahamad vs. U.O.I. Ministry Of Affairs Thru. Secy.And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 153

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director And Others vs. Dr. Charu Mahajan And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 154

Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 155

Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 156

State of UP vs. Ajai Mishra @ Taini And 3 Ors along with a connected criminal revision plea 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 157

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Section 138 NI Act| 'Notice Not Invalid If Other Amount Is Separately Indicated Therein Along With Cheque Amount': Allahabad High Court

Case title - Prashant Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4587 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 148

The Allahabad High Court has held that if in a demand notice, other amounts are mentioned along with the cheque amount in a separate portion in detail, the said notice can not be faulted in a legal term of Section 138 (b) of the Act, 1881.

For context, as per Section 138 (b) of the 1881 Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, on the dishonour of the cheque, has to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

Trial Court Not Barred From Granting Maintenance From Date Of Order If Reasons Exist For Doing So: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Ranjeeta @ Ravita vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1165 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not completely blocked the discretionary power of the trial court in granting maintenance from the date of order in the case there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same.

For context, in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Court, in 2020, issued guidelines on payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters. In that case, it was held that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance.

'Raise Claims For Arrears Of Rent Through District Judges, Don't Take Recourse To Judicial Proceedings': Allahabad HC Directs State Judicial Officers

Case title - Manas Vatsa vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8267 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 150

The Allahabad High Court has directed all the Judicial Officers seeking to arrears of rent (in the event the Judicial Officer was not provided Government accommodation) should raise their claims through their respective District Judges and not take recourse to judicial proceedings for the same

"...it is not in the interest of justice and principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive that Judicial Officers should take recourse to judicial proceedings in such matters for redressal of their grievance, in particular, arrears of rent," the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed.

'Court Not A Post Office Or Mouthpiece Of State/District Magistrate': Allahabad HC Quashes Order Attaching Properties Under UP Gangster Act

Case title - Waseem Khan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 203 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 151

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), while ordering the release of the attached properties of one Wasim Khan under the UP-Gangster Act, observed that the court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate.

The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing orders of the seizure (of the properties of the alleged gangster Wasim Khan) sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and upheld by the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow.

Use Of Lethal Weapon Sufficient To Constitute Offence U/S 307 IPC If Attempt To Cause Injury Is Made With Intention To Murder: Allahabad HC

Case title - Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1496 of 1995]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 152

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere use of a lethal weapon is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 307 and that it is not necessary to constitute the offence that the attack should result in an injury.

"An attempt is itself sufficient if there is requisite intention. An intention to murder can be gathered from circumstances other than the existence or nature of the injury," the bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I held.

With this, the bench upheld the conviction of accused-Kamal Singh in connection with a 32 year old attempt to murder case.

However, the Court reduced the sentence period awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in 1992, from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment without modifying the fine imposed on him.

Religious Education In Madrasas On Govt Expense| Allahabad High Court Allows NCPCR To Intervene In Matter

Case Title - Azaj Ahamad vs. U.O.I. Ministry Of Affairs Thru. Secy.And 4 Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 153

The Allahabad High Court allowed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to intervene in a case wherein the Court has raised the issues as to whether religious education can be imparted in Government funded Madrasas and whether this could be in violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, in March this year, while dealing with a writ plea filed by Azaj Ahamad, working as a teacher in a Madarsa, asked the Central and State Governments to file their responses on the matter.

Article 226| Availability Of Alternative Remedy By Itself Doesn't Divest HC Of Entertaining Writ Plea In An Appropriate Case: Allahabad HC

Case title - Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director And Others vs. Dr. Charu Mahajan And Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 228 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 154

The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the availability of an alternative remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case, though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious and alternative remedy is provided by law.

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla by taking into account the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70, Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh LL 2021 SC 222 and Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others (1998) 8 SCC 1, held thus:

"... an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depends on the facts of each case. It is also equally settled that the availability of alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar, it is rather a rule of self-imposed discipline/restriction and public policy, and in certain cases falling within the exception as carved out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), even in the wake of availability of alternative statutory remedy, this Court can decide to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India"

Allahabad HC Quashes Complaint Against MLA Swami Prasad Maurya For His Alleged Statement Against Goddess Gauri & Lord Ganesha

Case title - Swami Prasad Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And Anr [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 55 of 2016]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 155

The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed against Samajwadi Party MLA Swami Prasad Maurya over his alleged statement made in the year 2014 that "Goddess Gauri or Lord Ganesha should not be worshipped during weddings".

The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also quashed the order of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur passed in November 2014 summoning Maurya to face charges under Section 295A IPC.

'Victim Was Trapped In Pornography Web': Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Advocate Accused Of Raping Client

Case title - Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10374 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 156

The Allahabad High Court denied bail to an advocate who has been accused of repeatedly making physical relationships with the victim, his client, against her wishes after threatening her with dire consequences.

While rejecting his bail plea, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was of the view that the accused is well acquainted with the victim and since during the trial, the statement of the victim has not been recorded to date, therefore, if he gets bail at this stage, he will definitely try to influence her.

'No Perversity In Trial Court's Order, It Didn't Miss Woods For Trees': Allahabad HC Upholds MoS Ajay Mishra's Acquittal In Murder Case

Case Title - State of UP vs. Ajai Mishra @ Taini And 3 Ors along with a connected criminal revision plea

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 157

While upholding the acquittal of Union Minister of State for Home, Ajay Mishra Teni in a 23-year-old Prabhat Gupta Murder Case, the Allahabad High Court said that there was no perversity in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as the lower Court didn't miss the woods for the trees.

With this, finding the prosecution's theory to be unconvincing, the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed UP Govt's appeal against the acquittal order passed by Trial Court in 2004.

"...in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and in any case, the law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court. Further, on the recording of the findings as aforesaid, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the chain of events which can be said to exclusively lead to the one and only conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the accused persons," the Court added.