Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: May 2023
Sparsh Upadhyay
18 Jun 2023 4:18 PM GMT
NOMINAL INDEX Juvenile 'X' (Minor) Thru. His Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 140 U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman And 10 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 141 Rajeev Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 142 Ajay Diwakar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others along with connected bail...
NOMINAL INDEX
Juvenile 'X' (Minor) Thru. His Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 140
U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman And 10 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 141
Rajeev Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Ajay Diwakar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others along with connected bail pleas 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Udit Arya vs. State of U.P 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Afshan Ansari vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Laxmi Devi And 3 Otrs. vs. State Of U.P Thru Principal Sec.(Civil Sec.) Lko. Nd 5 Otrs. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 147
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
Himanshu Kumar vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Urmila Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 159
Ravindra Pratap Yadav vs. Asha Devi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 160
Yuvraj Naag vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162
Mujeem vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 163
Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Guddu Verma vs. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 165
Rani Gaur vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Rajesh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 167
Jai Kishan @ Bablu vs. State of UP along with a connected criminal appeal 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168
M/S Imagine Fashion Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v Presiding Officer Commercial Court and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 169
Md Sameer Rao vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Lucknow PUBG-Murder Case| Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile Accused Of Killing Mother
Case title - Juvenile 'X' (Minor) Thru. His Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 140
In the infamous Lucknow PUBG-Murder case, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the 16-year-old boy (at the time of the incident) who has been accused of killing his own mother using his father’s licensed pistol.
Though initially it was claimed that the Boy killed his mother as she stopped him from playing PUBG, a mobile-based game, the subsequent news reports suggest that the Juvenile admitted that he killed his mother as he was irritated with the frequent visits of a property dealer to his house to meet his mother.
Case title - U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vs. Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman And 10 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5967 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court directed a Court in Mathura to decide the suit pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah land dispute, pending before it, without being influenced by the observations made by the Mathura District Judge on the merits/contentious issues of the case in its 19 May 2022 order.
Significantly, this order of the Allahabad High Court has paved the way for the resumption of the hearing of the suit before the Mathura Court seeking the removal of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque), located adjacent to the Shri Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and the transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity-Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman.
Case title - Rajeev Kumar Yadav vs. State Of Up And 3 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 699 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh Government's March 10 circular to provide financial aid (Rs. 1 Lakh to each district) for holding religious events during Navratri Puja and Ram Navami festivals that began on March 22.
“…the said Government Order has been found issued, to publicize different development works and developments of basic amenities by the Tourism Department of the State Govt. and other departments of the State Government, at various temples. No amount has been found payable to any priest or for any purpose associated with the activities at any temple,” the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh said.
Case title - Ajay Diwakar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others along with connected bail pleas
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 143
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that unless a minor victim denies explicitly the existence of physical relation, it can be presumed that the victim and accused, who lived as husband-wife or that they solemnised marriage, had established physical relation.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery further held in those cases where the existence of a physical relationship between the minor victim and accused could be presumed, then a rape case could be made out as the fact of whether consent was given or not, is immaterial.
Case title - Udit Arya vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4560 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a proclaimed offender is not barred from filing an Anticipatory bail application under section 438 of CrPC.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further observed that neither Section 82 CrPC (Proclamation for person absconding) nor Section 438 CrPC imposes any restriction in the filing of the anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender.
In this regard, the bench also referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 to note that the Top Court had said the anticipatory bail application of the proclaimed offender should not be entertained normally.
Other Updates of the Week
The Allahabad High Court reserved its verdict in a plea filed before it seeking the transfer of suits pending before the Mathura Court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, to the HC.
The Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I passed reserved the order today weeks after it entertained and agreed to hear the Transfer plea filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others.
The Allahabad High Court issued various directions on the administrative side to all the District and Sessions Judges in Uttar Pradesh pertaining to the disposal of bail pleas in light of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau ofInvestigation and another 2022 LiveLaw (SC)577.
In a letter written by the Registrar General of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judges in Uttar Pradesh have been directed to dispose of the Bail Applications within two weeks and strictly follow SC’s Judgment in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
Case title - Afshan Ansari vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7925 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court directed the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to accord full security to Ex-MLA Mukhtar Ansari while shifting him from one jail to another and while producing him before any Court from jail and on the way or any other place.
The bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also directed that no media person shall be permitted to interview him and that he would be accompanied by the police personnel during his ingress and egress from jail.
Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court acquitted two accused who were awarded a sentence of life imprisonment in a murder case as it found that the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused was not complete.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal concluded that the alleged eye witness of the incident did not support the prosecution story and even there was no documentary evidence which could establish that the alleged recovered ashes and burnt bones belonged to the deceased.
Case title - Laxmi Devi And 3 Otrs. vs. State Of U.P Thru Principal Sec.(Civil Sec.) Lko. Nd 5 Otrs. [CIVIL REVISION No. - 114 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 147
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific survey (using modern techniques) of the 'Shiva Linga' that has purportedly been found inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises in Varanasi to ascertain its age.
The order was passed today by the bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I while ALLOWING a revision plea moved by 4 women Hindu worshippers challenging the Varanasi Court's October 14 order wherein the court had rejected their plea for conducting a scientific probe of the 'Shiva Linga', to determine its age.
The Allahabad High Court has sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh Government on implementing informative steps in the state Universities to cure the aberrant/deviant behaviour of young students.
Emphasising that the key to maintaining the students' discipline is ensuring a balance between punitive measures and reformative actions, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to file the affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.10-Additional Chief Secretary, Technical Education, U.P. Lucknow in this regard.
The Allahabad High Court sought responses from the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) and the NOIDA within two weeks on a petition filed challenging the demolition notices served to the owners of the farmhouses allegedly built over the Yamuna active floodplain area in Sector-135 of Noida.
The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has also granted Status Quo with respect to the property of a farm land owner against any coercive action taken by the NOIDA AuthorityThe hearing of the petition will be held in the second week of July.
Disqualified MP Afzal Ansari has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging his conviction in the Gangster Act case wherein he has been sentenced to 4 years in prison by the Ghazipur MP/MLA Court. In a separate plea, he has also prayed for a stay on conviction during the pendency of the appeal.
It may be noted that the case under the Gangster Act against Ansari and his brother and former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari was registered after they were booked for their involvement in the kidnapping of Vishwa Hindu Parishad office-bearer Nandkishore Rungta in the year 1996 and also in the murder of Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Krishnanand Rai in the year 2005.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Case Title - Himanshu Kumar vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8063 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 158
In a relief to a candidate who was declared successful in the 2018 BSF Head Constable (Radio Operator) exam but was denied employment on account of a religious tattoo mark on his hand, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Government to consider his candidature if he removes the tattoo.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava directed the Centre that if the petitioner/candidate removes the tattoo in question, then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which he had applied.
Case title - Urmila Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3552 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 159
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that no person can apply for bail in parts and that an accused is required to seek bail for all the offences for which he is wanted.
“No person can be permitted to apply for bail in part, that too firstly getting bail by invoking powers u/s 437 CrPC and later on taking recourse to Section 438 CrPC in the other sections. He has to apply for bail in all the sections he is wanted either u/s 437 CrPC or 438 CrPC,” the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said.
The bench held thus while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea filed by two applicants under Sections 392 and 452 IPC.
Case title - Ravindra Pratap Yadav vs. Asha Devi And Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 405 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 160
The Allahabad High Court dissolved the marriage between a couple on the ground of cruelty by observing that not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse with his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.
With this, the bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV allowed the appeal filed by the Husband challenging a family court's order dismissing his divorce petition under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
"Since there is no acceptable view in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is given by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage than that has ceased to in fact," the Court said as it quashed and set aside the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.
Siddique Kappan Co-Accused Atikur Rehman Granted Bail In PMLA Case By Allahabad High Court
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 161
The 'Hathras Conspiracy' case accused Atikur Rehman who was arrested in October 2020 along with journalist Siddique Kappan and two others on their way to Hathras to meet the family members of a gang rape and murder victim, was today granted by the Allahabad High Court in the Prevention of Money Laundering Activities (PMLA) case.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order today paving the way for Rehman's release after over 940 days of his incarceration. A detailed copy of the order is awaited. Earlier in March this year, he was granted bail in the Hathras Conspiracy case.
Case title - Yuvraj Naag vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 471 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate has the power under Section 190 CrPC to issue summons against persons who have not been mentioned as an accused in the charge sheet or arraigned in the first information report.
The bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Nahar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 wherein it was held by the Top Court that if there are materials before the Magistrate showing the complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in the commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage, could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence.
Case title - Mujeem vs. State Of U.P. And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17220 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 163
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC) based on the compromise entered into between the victim and the accused as it observed that permitting the parties to compromise would be an abdication of the State's function to prosecute offences against the society.
Considering the medico-legal report and the fact that the gunshot injury was sustained on the neck, which is a vital part of the body, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed thus:
"A reading of the FIR and the medico-legal report does not spare a shadow of doubt that the applicant shot the complainant-opposite party with a countrymade pistol and the complainant received a gunshot wound to his neck. It is only by sheer luck that he survived the fatal attack...Now, here the evidence shows that the weapon used was a fire-arm and it brooks little doubt that a person who opens FIR at another does so with the intention to kill. He certainly does not do so with the intention to love or play a jest."
Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 88 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 164
The Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura Court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute.
With this the Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I allowed the transfer application moved by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others. In the operative part of its order, it observed thus:
"...looking to the fact that as many as 10 suits are stated to be pending before the civil court and also there 25 should be more suits that can be said to be pending and issue can be said to be seminal public importance affected the masses beyond tribe and beyond communities having not proceeded an inch further since their institution on merits for past two to three years, provides full justification for withdrawal of all the suits touching upon the issue involved in the suit from the civil court concerned to this Court under Section 24(1)(b) CPC"
Case title - Guddu Verma vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2207 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 165
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be attracted in a case unless the initial burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is prima facie discharged by the prosecution.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by one Guddu Verma who was convicted by the trial court in 2016 for (allegedly) killing his wife in April 1998.
Case title - Rani Gaur vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2047 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate can drop proceedings against an accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act if he offers a fair and acceptable amount, which, in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in the case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta wherein the top Court had observed that an accused in a case under Section 138 of NI Act can be discharged even without the consent of the complainant if the Court is satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated.
“The Supreme Court did not say that the requirement of consent for compounding may just be done away with. Instead, widening the compensatory aspect of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Apex Court has carved out a window in the existing scheme of things saying that the case can be disposed of without obtaining direct consent of the complainant under certain circumstances. The circumstances included offering an amount fair and acceptable which in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant. That is under certain circumstances the court can proceed in the absence of direct consent. The court is empowered to apply its discretion in terms of provisions of Section 258 CrPC,” the Court said.
Case title - Rajesh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10336 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 167
The Allahabad High Court observed that there has been an alarming and shocking increase in sexual offences committed against children.
Noting that all such sexual assaults are not reported and do not come to light, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added thus:
“…this is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of the rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls.”
Case title - Jai Kishan @ Bablu vs. State of UP along with a connected criminal appeal
Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 168
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to a man, and his lover, who killed his wife after setting her ablaze in 2011 merely because she was a strong protester of their illicit relationship.
The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that such persons are not entitled to any leniency as they are a black spot in society.
“This version of P.W.-3 that the accused-appellants, namely, Jaikishan @ Bablu and Anita used to have illicit relations, which the deceased used to object and due to which the accused-appellant Jaikishan used to beat and torture the deceased and ultimately, in the night of the incident, both the accused-appellants killed her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire, has been fully supported by the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.-2 and the version as unfolded in the FIR, even though the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are hear say witnesses but they are consistent from the very beginning and till the recording of their statements before the trial court,” the Court concluded in its operative part of the Judgment.
Case Title: M/S Imagine Fashion Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v Presiding Officer Commercial Court and Anr. [ARTICLE 227 No. - 6736 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 169
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Commercial Court cannot reject an application filed where the judgement debtor resides for execution of an arbitral award, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
“This Court finds that the law in regard to moving the execution application has already been settled by Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) and provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 1996 is clear to the extent that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable for enforcement of the award and the award shall be treated as decree. Once the said provisions are there, filing of execution case by the petitioner at the place where respondent No.2 resides is within the territorial jurisdiction as provided under the Act and the order passed by Commercial Court refusing to entertain execution application is totally erroneous,” the bench, comprising of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed.
Case title - Md Sameer Rao vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 3671 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 170
Stressing that the intimacy of human life and a person’s name is undeniable, the Allahabad High Court said that the fundamental right to keep or change a name is vested in every citizen by virtue of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while allowing a writ petition filed by one Sameer Rao challenging the action of the UP Board of High School and Intermediate Education rejecting the application filed by the petitioner praying to get his name changed in the High School and Intermediate examination certificates.
Case title - Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others [CIVIL REVISION No. - 101 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171
The Allahabad High Court today dismissed the revision plea moved by the Anjuman Intazamia Mosque Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) challenging a Varanasi Court order (of September 12, 2022) dismissing its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea that was filed last year objecting to the maintainability of Hindu Worshippers' suit filed in Varanasi Court seeking worshipping rights inside the Gyanvapi Mosque compound.
In essence, the HC has rejected the mosque committee's challenge to the 5 Hindu women worshippers' suit pending before the Varanasi Court. Last year in December, the bench of Justice JJ Munir reserved its judgment after hearing counsels for both parties at length.
With this, the Court has upheld the September 12, 2022 order of the Varanasi Court holding the said suit to be maintainable.
