Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279 Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280 Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281 Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282 Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283 Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284 Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285 Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286 Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287 Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288 Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289 Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290 Judgments/Orders of the Week UP Jal Nigam Recruitment Scam | Allahabad HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against SP Leader Azam Khan's Co-Accused Case title - Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279 The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused (Bhavesh Jain) in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam recruitment scam case. The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav noted that the complaint and the charge sheet submitted against the accused, a software engineer, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. Court Can Allow Prosecution To Produce Certificate U/S 65-B (4) Evidence Act At A Later Stage During Trial: Allahabad High Court Case title - Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 588 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280 The High Court observed that the trial court has the power to allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point of time during the trial. The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus as it upheld the order of the trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution under section 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they were not filed in property form during the filming of the charge sheet. It may be noted that Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act requires the production of a certificate for leading secondary evidence of an electronic record. This provision aims to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. Allahabad HC Explains Ingredients To Constitute Offence U/S 308 IPC [Attempt To Commit Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder] Case title - Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 584 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281 In an order passed in a criminal revision, the High Court explained the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC [attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder]. Matrimonial Case Should Be Quashed If Husband-Wife Have Resolved Dispute Through Compromise Deed Duly Verified By Court: Allahabad HC Case title - Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 650 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282 The High Court observed that matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themself through a compromise deed duly filed and verified by the Court. The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed thus as it quashed criminal proceedings initiated by an FIR lodged by the wife against the husband and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act 'Deplorable' That Public Representatives Compel Govt Servants To Pass Illegal Orders And They Do So: Allahabad High Court Case title - Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1959 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283 "It is deplorable that the representative of the public compel the public servant to pass illegal orders and the public servant comply their illegal dictates without any demur," observed the High Court in one of its orders. The Bench of Justice Siddharth made this stern remark while allowing a plea filed by one Basrat Ullah challenging an order passed by Special Secretary, UP Govt removing him as the Principal of Madarsa Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrool Uloom at District Basti. Once Magistrate Takes Cognizance Of Offences He Can't Review His Own Order & Drop/Withdraw Section(s):...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags