- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Allahabad High Court Monthly...
Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 29-80]
Sparsh Upadhyay
12 March 2022 4:08 AM GMT
![Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 29-80]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408722-allahabad-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 29-80]")
NOMINAL INDEX 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)...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Judgments/Orders of the Month
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 PWÂ1 (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.
9. 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.
12. 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 PWÂ1 (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 - Â 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."
34. 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.
46. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
52. 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"."
Important Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case title - Ratna Devi v. Triyug Narayan Mishra And 2 Others
Noticing that in the operative portion of an order passed in Appeal, the Lower/appellate Court had mentioned provisions of law, under which the order was made, the High Court sought the reply of Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Ballia explaining his action.
"Mentioning of the provisions of the law in the operative portion of the order is not something expected prima facie of a trained Judge, who is not a lay Court," the Bench of Justice J.J. Munir remarked as it sought the reply of the ADJ on or before February 17, 2022.
Case title - Faraz Hasan v. State of U.P.
The High Court recently deprecated and condemned the tendency of the parents of the wife to come to the Mediation Center only for receiving the amount, deposited by the applicant/husband rather than coming there to settle the matrimonial disputes.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed thus as it noted that the parties are coming to the process of mediation in the most non-serious way and premeditated mind.
Case title - Chand Miyan v. State Of Up And 5 Others
Hearing the plea moved by Chand Miyan (father of the Kasganj Custodial death Victim) seeking a CBI probe in the matter, the High Court sought the status report of the magisterial inquiry ordered in the matter by February 8.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma directed the Additional Government Advocate to file the report before the next date of hearing, i.e., February 8.
The High Court issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government on the plea filed by Dr. Kafeel Khan challenging the termination of his services from the State-run BRD Medical College by the State government.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy has asked for a counter in 4 weeks. Khan, against whom the Uttar Pradesh government had issued suspension orders, was dismissed from his service in the 2017 BRD Hospital case, where 63 children had died at Gorakhpur's BRD Medical College in August 2017 due to an alleged shortage of oxygen.
Case title - Atiq-Ur-Rehman and 2 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others
Hearing the bail plea of UAPA Accused Atiq-Ur-Rehman and other accused person who were held by UP Police in 2020 while they were on their way to Hathras to meet the family members of gang rape and murder victim, the High Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice and adjourned the matter to February 10.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ajay Tyagi sent the matter to the Chief Justice while observing that since the hearing in Habeas Corpus Plea (main matter out of a bunch of connected maters) filed by Atiq and others has already been concluded and in such a situation, it wouldn't be appropriate to hear the instant bail pleas (one of the connected matters).
Case title - Sangeeta Singh (Social Activist) v. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Information And Broadcast And 6 Others
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in Allahabad High Court by Shri Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena's National Vice President (women wing) to restrain the release of the movie 'Prithviraj' starring Akshay Kumar and Manushi Chhillar.
The plea has been moved by Sangeeta Singh, National Vice President of (women wing) of Shri Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena and practicing lawyer in Supreme Court alleging that the film has been titled as 'Prithviraj' in place of 'Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan' and thus, it passes a wrong message in society also hurts the religious sentiments and beliefs of Rajput Community.
7. Allahabad High Court To Function In Hybrid Mode From February 7
The High Court decided that the mode of hearing in the High Court, both at Allahabad and Lucknow, will be switched over to hybrid mode from virtual mode w.e.f. Monday, i.e. 07.02.2022.
This order will be subject to other COVID-19 protocols, including restrictions on the entry of Clerks of Advocates and Litigants other than those whose personal presence has been directed by an order of the Court.
Case title - Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court has yet again expressed concerns over the non-implementation of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, and also Junaid case guidelines issued by the High Court by the CWCs (Child Welfare Committee) in all districts of U.P.
It may be noted that in Junaid's case, the High Court had, inter alia, issued directions and a timeline for the disposal of bail applications under the POCSO Act, 2012.
Case title - Swale Raza v. State of U.P
The High Court slammed the Station House Officer of a police station in District Budaun as he 'passed an order' to hand over the custody of an adult woman (named Shivani Gupta) to another adult man (named Swale Raza).
The Bench of Justice Jahangir Jamshed Munir also sought a personal affidavit from SSP, Badaun in two days as the Court called it unpalatable as to how the custody of an adult could be given to another adult, and that too, by a Police Officer.
Case title - Rashida And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
The High Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit in the criminal writ petition filed seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in an alleged custodial violence case.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma ordered thus after hearing a criminal writ plea filed by one Rashida, Her Husband Mohd. Harun and their daughters, Shama Chauhan and Sonam Jahan.
Case title - Ashwani Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
The High Court observed that in criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, the Court has to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material against them.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan also remarked that Mere naming of distant relations in the First Information Report (FIR) is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.
Case title - Canara Bank/Assets Recovery Mgmt.Branch,Lko.Thru.Chief Manager Ajeet Kumar Srivastava v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow And 2 Others and connected petition
In a strongly worded order, the High Court lashed out at Central Government for its failure to make appointments to the vacant posts of Presiding Officer/Chairman of Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh even remarked that if the Government is unable to appoint competent persons as Presiding Officers/Chairmen in D.R.Ts./D.R.A.Ts., then it is better that enactment is scrapped and the tribunals are abolished.
Case title - Kiranpal @ Kinnu v. State of U.P.
The High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr to take appropriate action against the responsible officers who failed to serve the POCSO Accused bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC as per the directions issued by this Court in Junaid case.
It may be noted that in Junaid's case, the High Court had, inter alia, issued directions and a definite timeline for the disposal of bail applications under the POCSO Act, 2012.
The Court had also issued a direction to the police and the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to inform the aggrieved/victim party on getting the notice of the bail application of the accused, inform them about their rights, provide legal services, etc.
Read more about the Junaid case here: Allahabad High Court Issues Directions & Timeline For Disposal Of Bail Applications Under POCSO Act, 2012
Case title - Akash Vashishtha v. State of UP
The High Court issued notices to the Election Commission of India, State of Uttar Pradesh, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the Central Pollution Control Board, among others over a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in connection with election plastic waste disposal during assembly elections.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava has also issued a notice to the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, and the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on this plea, which primarily seeks an interim stay on the manufacture and use of PVC and other chlorinated plastic-based advertising products such as Banners/Hoardings/ Flexes/Signage's/ Flags or likes for the purpose of its use in UP Assembly Polls 2022.
15. Allahabad High Court Directs Second Autopsy Of The Body Of Kasganj Custodial Death Victim Altaf
Case title - Chand Miyan v. State Of UP And 5 Others
The High Court directed a second autopsy of the body of the Kasganj Custodial death Victim, Altaf by a team of doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma was hearing the plea moved by Chand Miyan (father of the Altaf) seeking a CBI probe and second autopsy in the matter.
16. Allahabad High Court Issues Show Cause Notice To A Civil Judge For His Failure To Sign Order Sheet
Case title - Daya Agarwal v. The Court Of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lucknow And Another
The High Court issued a show cause notice to the Presiding Officer of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow, asking him as to why the disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for not signing the order sheet.
The Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra directed the Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow, Mr. Piyush Bharti to submit his explanation by the next date of listing i.e. March 28, 2022.
Case title - Ajay v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home
The High Court adjourned the hearing in a bail application as the counsel appearing for the petitioner refused to switch his camera on due to the fact that he wasn't in uniform.
The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal called it 'objectionable' and listed the matter for further hearing on March 15, 2022.
Essentially, the Counsel for the lawyer was connected through video conferencing and his camera is switched off. When he was directed to turn on his camera, he said that since he is not in the uniform and as such he cannot switch it on.
In view of the decreasing COVID cases in the state, the High Court issued fresh guidelines for the functioning of Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. From February 14 onwards, all the Courts (including tribunals) subordinate to the High Court were opened to take up the Judicial work & Administrative matters.
Allowing a correction plea, the High Court added missing Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC in its recent order granting bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister and the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case
It may be noted that the Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh had granted bail to Mishra on February 10 and its original bail order, it was stated that Mishra had been booked under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 427/34 of IPC and section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of M.V. Act.
The Allahabad High Court today slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its failure to produce the post mortem reports of the victims of the Nithari case (also known as the 2006 Noida Serial Murders case).
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain was hearing an appeal filed by accused Surinder Koli against his conviction and sentence of the death penalty. Koli has been found guilty of rapes and murder of several children between 2005 and 2006 and has been was sentenced to death in over 10 cases.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others
The High Court sought the reply of the Central Government and High Officials of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on a plea filed by 3 candidates who were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm).
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre's and SSB's counsel to seek instructions in this regard and the matter was posted for further hearing on February 23.
Case title - Jyoti Rajpoot v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, the High Court ordered Medical and Financial assistance for a mentally retarded lady found roaming on the toads of Lucknow, unattended.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan was hearing a PIL plea moved by one Jyoti Rajpoot with a prayer to issue appropriate directions ensuring the welfare of a mentally retarded young woman who was found roaming around in an area of Lucknow and was unattended.
The High Court issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government and its prompt counter-affidavit on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed challenging the government's decision to make blind persons ineligible to apply for several government posts.
The Plea has been moved by All India Confederation of the Blind and National Association of the Visually Handicap through Advocate Shwetabh Singh and it states that several posts, which were already identified for blind persons and such persons are already working effectively on such posts, have been dis-identified / exempted for blind persons.
Case title - Avinash Kumar Modi v. State of U.P. and Another
The High Court handed over the probe into an alleged scam of Rs. 1200/- crores in the subsidy to the manufacturers of fertilizers, without the actual supply of fertilizers by the manufacturers to the distributors.
The Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary ordered thus in a 482 CrPC plea filed by one of the accused in the scam, Avinash Kumar Modi who sought for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in the case against him under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-I.P.C.
Case title - Yogindra Misra v. State of U.P. and others
The High Court decided to deal with the issue of stray cattle menace in rural areas and therefore, it appointed Advocate Yogendra Misra, assisted by Advocate S. M. Singh Royekwar to assist the Court in the matter as Amicus Curie.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also directed the State Counsel to seek instructions in the matter within a period of two weeks.
Further, the Court has also sought a counter affidavit within the said period from the Chief Development Officer, who serves as the Chairman of a Committee constituted for the safety of cattle in the cattle shades.
Case Title - Rakesh Gupta And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary , Ministry Of Urban Planning And Development And 3 Others
In a Special Sunday Sitting, the High Court temporarily stayed the proposed demolition of a hundred-year-old homeopathic clinic and restaurant for the purpose of constructing the Prayagraj airport corridor.
27. PIL Moved In Allahabad High Court Seeking A Stay On 'Why I killed Gandhi' Movie Streaming
Case title - Rehan Alam Khan and Another v. Union of India and others
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in the High Court seeking a stay on the streaming of the short film 'Why I killed Gandhi'. The plea contends that the display of the film may disturb the communal harmony of Uttar Pradesh amid the ongoing assembly elections.
The plea has been moved by Rehan Alam Khan and Himanshu Gupta and it goes on to submit that the Movie, which was released on January 30th [the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi] on the OTT platform Limelight, tarnishes the image of the Father of the Nation and also disturbs the peace and social harmony of the Indian Society.
Case title - Mohit Agrawal And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
The High Court stayed the arrest of a man (and his family members) who is living with a married woman in connection with an FIR registered against him by the husband of the woman.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar also issued a notice to the husband of the woman seeking his reply in the matter.
The High Court has disposed of its plea concerning the suo moto petition registered for the extension of interim orders in all matters pending before it and subordinate Courts including interim bails.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal ordered thus as it noted that the situation of the pandemic COVID- 19 has improved and now, normal functions of day-to-day life are being undertaken and the Courts are physically working. The Cout also said that the position has improved as per the data of different agencies of the State of U.P.
Case title - Shabbu v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Expressing dissatisfaction with 'institutional preparedness' on part of the U.P. Police to curb the menace of cyber-related crimes, the High Court sought the reply of the state Director-General of Police over an array of issues.
Significantly, the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot also stressed that the pervasive and fast-evolving nature of cybercrime requires the U.P. Police as an institution to think ahead, plan conceptual responses, and execute a well-thought-out strategic response.
