Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: June 10 - June 16, 2024
Sparsh Upadhyay
23 Jun 2024 9:25 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Orders/Judgments of the Week
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.
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).
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'.
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.
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”.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
