Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: March 25 – March 31, 2024

Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193

Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194

Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195

Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196

The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197

Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198

Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199

Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Additional Chief Medical Officer Has No Authority To File A Complaint For Any Offence Under PCPNDT Act: Allahabad HC

Case title - Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State Of U.P And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2998 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 193

The Allahabad High Court has held that an Additional Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate authority and he has no authority to file a complaint for any alleged offence committed under the provisions of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held thus while perusing the mandate of Sections 28 and Section 17 (1) & (2) of the 1994 Act. For context, Section 28 bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority. Section 17 provides for the manner of appointment of an 'appropriate authority'.

S. 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC Doesn't Bar FIR Registration Where Alleged Forgery In Documents Took Place Outside Court: Allahabad HC

Case title - Vishwanath vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 194

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC doesn't bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court and thereafter, the alleged forged document was filed in judicial proceedings in a case pending in a Court.

For context, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law Applicable To Live-In Relationships Too: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mariya Zameel Urf Riya And Another vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195 [WRIT - C No. - 1067 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 195

The Allahabad High Court observed that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 applies not only to marriages but to relationships in the nature of marriage or live-in relationships.

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal made this observation while dismissing a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple (petitioners) as it noted that the duo had not applied for registration of any conversion under the provisions of the 2021 Act.

No Suit For Injunction Maintainable Against Notifications Declaring Land As Reserved Forest Under Indian Forest Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 756 of 1982]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 196

The Allahabad High Court has held that suit for permanent injunction under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 is not maintainable against the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring a land as reserved forest area.

The Court held that such notifications can only be challenged before the Forest Settlement Officer as per the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1927.

“….once notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 were issued and published in official gazette, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar.

Questions Of Agreement Implications And Legal Provisions Need To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 A&C Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory.

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 197

The Allahabad High Court held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record.

Employee Placed Under Suspension During Detention Can't Be Denied Wages Upon Acquittal In Absence Of Any Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 11555 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 198

The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee placed under suspension during the period of detention cannot be denied wages upon acquittal in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry and bail during the period of suspension.

The Court further held that such an employee who has been suspended during the period of detention needs to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period.

“The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.

DRT | Effect & Operation Of Any Interim Order Passed Is Wiped Out At The Passing Of Final Order: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ram Avtar v. M/s Durga Rice & Dall Mills & 5 Others. [WRIT - C No. - 68334 of 2005]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 199

The Allahabad High Court held that the effect and operation of any interim order passed is wiped out at the passing of the final order.

The bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal held that “once an appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, the interim order, if any, passed thereon automatically merges with the final order.”

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra wherein the Supreme Court held that where stay is granted vide an interim order and the petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order is merged with the final order. It was held that beneficiary of the interim order must pay interest upon the vacation of the interim order on the amount withheld or not paid due to the interim order.

1996 Assault Case: Allahabad High Court Stays Conviction Of Actor & Congress Leader Raj Babbar

Case title - Raj Babbar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 200

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) stayed the conviction of actor and Congress politician Raj Babbar in connection with a 1996 case lodged against him for allegedly assaulting a polling officer when he was contesting the Lok Sabha election from Lucknow (then) as a Samajwadi Party candidate.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan on a plea moved by Babbar under Section 389(2) CrPC challenging an order of conviction passed by a Lucknow MP/MLA court in July 2022 wherein he was sentenced to two years in jail.