Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Brij Raj Singh, J., expressed that, a father is legally bound to maintain his child according to the status and lifestyle.

Instant revision was preferred to set aside the decision passed by the Principal Judge under Section 125 CrPC after summoning the records of the lower Court with a prayer to stay implementation and operation of the said order and to direct the OP-2 to provide Rs 10,000 per month towards interim maintenance to revisionist and Rs 40,00,000 for the purpose of marriage and education during the pendency of revision.

The revisionist had filed through her mother for granting maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to be paid by her father, the OP 2.

Analysis and Decision

High Court took note of the settled law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, that both, the working mother and working father have to take the liability of the child and if the mother is working, it does not mean that the father will be absolved from taking responsibility of his child. The father is legally bound to maintain his child according to the status and lifestyle.

The Court stated that in the present matter, lower Court’s finding that the revisionist was not showing emotional feeling and compassion towards her father on the dates when the case was fixed for hearing, has got no legs.

It is the duty of the father to maintain her child and the revisionist being daughter is entitled to seek maintenance from her father. 

Further, this court opined that the lower Court committed an error while making an observation that the mother was working in H.A.L, therefore, she must maintain the revisionist. The finding was further incorrect, wherein, it was observed that the mother was maintaining her daughter since 1991 and thus it was presumed that all the needs of the child were being fulfilled.

It was also noted that OP 2 indicated that his total salary was Rs 78, 825 out of which he had deposited Rs 45,000 in PF just to show that he was getting a lesser income of Rs 23,025 per month. He deposited the heavy amount in the PF so that the revisionist may not claim the appropriate maintenance amount.

In view of the above findings, Court did not find the order passed by the lower Court to be sustainable. Hence, the revision was allowed. [Ankita Dikshit v. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 398 of 2016, decided on 13-5-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Revisionist:- Mohammad Aslam Beg

Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Brij Raj Singh, J., while addressing a maintenance case, observed that if a wife proves that she is unable to maintain herself, she will be entitled to maintenance.

A revision petition was preferred to quash the judgment and order passed by the Family Court so far as it related to the rejection of the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of revisionist 1 and also enhance the amount of maintenance awarded to revisionist 2.

 The wife and daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband argued that as per Muslim Personal Law revisionist 1 was divorced Muslim wife, therefore, she had to pursue the maintenance case before the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Further, he argued that after divorce she was not entitled to maintenance.

The High Court stated that the OP 2’s argument that the revisionist was entitled to seek remedy as provided in Act, 1986 was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In Court’s opinion, the proceeding under Section 125 CrPC is available to revisionist once she had taken resort to proceed under Section 125 CrPC.

It is true that the wife was divorced but as per the Supreme Court decision in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, wherein it had been pronounced that if the divorce is declared in one go and the Fatava is issued, the same cannot be legal divorce and it has no legal force.

Bench stated that since the divorce given by OP 2 was not in accordance with the Quoran, hence the divorce given by OP 2 was not in accordance with law. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Iqbal Bano v. State of U.P., (2007) 6 SCC 785, it was not in accordance with law and the opposite party 2 could not prove the divorce as per law.

The High Court added that Section 125 CrPC is to be read in harmonious construction, but only on the basis of Section 125(4) CrPC the lower court came to the conclusion that revisionist 1 was deserted because she could not produce the evidence of physical assault and cruelty.

where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, wife would be entitled to maintenance.

High Court opined that revisionist 1 was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The application for maintenance filed by revisionist 1 was allowed and it was observed that she would be entitled to Rs 7,000/- per month as maintenance. [Arshiya Rizvi v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 318, decided on 13-5-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Revisionist:- Nadeem Murtaza, Mohd. Mohsin

Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Purnendu Chakravarty

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: In a matter wherein the petitioner sought commissioning of a study so that history of Taj Mahal could be explored, and controversy be put to rest, the Division Bench of Devendra Upadhyaya and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ., held that the as to which subject should be studied or researched or which topic of a particular area or discipline are not issues where this Court can be said to be possessed of any judicially manageable standards to adjudicate upon.

Proceedings in the public interest were instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition sought a direction to be issued for commissioning a study in respect of the history of a monument known as Taj Mahal situated in Agra, further authorities may be directed to open the sealed doors of the approximately 22 rooms situated inside the Taj Mahal, so that alleged controversy relating to its history may be set at rest.

A declaration for declaring the parliamentary enactment namely Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951 to be ultra vires the provisions of Article 19 (1) (a), 25, 26, 49 and 51-A (f) (h) of the Constitution of India to the extent the said Act declares certain monuments mentioned in the prayer clause as having been built by Mughals.

Adding to the above, a direction, particularly for ASI, was sought to open the locks of the upper and lower portions of the 4 storeyed Taj Mahal to remove all the walls built which are blocking such rooms and further to investigate scientifically and certify as to which of the two cenotaphs are fake.

Lastly, it was stated that certain directions regarding the removal of certain structures within the building be made so that historical evidence hidden inside may be brought to the surface.

Analysis and Decision


High Court held that the petitioner has called upon the Court to adjudicate and give a verdict on a completely non-justiciable issue.

The Bench stated that the power of judicial review is circumscribed by certain well recognized and established legal principles, one of such principles is the doctrine of non-justiciability.

The well-known doctrine of non-justiciability enunciates that if there are no judicially manageable standards available to a Court to adjudicate upon an issue, the petition of such a nature will not be maintainable.

Direction for opening up of rooms existing in Taj Mahal to facilitate historical study

Any historical research conducted by academicians will necessarily involve a particular methodology. Determination of the question as to which particular methodology of research would yield correct results, in our opinion, lies outside the scope of our jurisdiction and powers of judicial review.

Further, the Court added that, a writ of mandamus can be issued only in case of infringement of any right. To conduct the study and research or exploration of knowledge etc. are the subjects and issues, which, as observed above, are better to be left to the academicians, the researchers and experts of the field.

Hence, in absence of infringement of a legal right or constitutional right, Court would not be able to entertain the petition.

“Judges by experience and training are not equipped to pronounce any verdict on non-justiciable issues.”

While concluding the matter, Court held that, the Court exercising powers of judicial review may refrain itself from exercising its jurisdiction if it finds that the controversy raised before it cannot be adjudicated upon or determined on any judicially manageable and discoverable standard.

Moving to the other prayers, Court found that the 1951 Act was repealed on promulgation of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Hence, prayer made seeking a declaration that a legislation is ultra-vires, which stood repealed about 64 years ago is redundant.

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed. [Dr Rajneesh Singh v. Ministry of Culture, PIL No. 236 of 2022, decided on 12-5-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Petitioner:- Ram Prakash Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Brij Raj Singh, J., while discussing the matter with regard to providing maintenance to a wife, noted that the Court below had made observations on being influenced by factual aspects which were not proved.

The instant revision was preferred to set aside the decision of the Family Court in a criminal case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to direct the OP to pay at least Rs 10,000 as monthly maintenance.

Background

The wife submitted that she was married to OP 1 prior to 40 years and out of the wedlock three children were born. The OP 2 had provided maintenance to her till 1983, but thereafter it was stopped by him. Further, she stated that she was dependent on her brother who used to provide financial assistance but suddenly had gone missing. She had filed the application as she has no source of income, and hence needed maintenance from her husband.

Point Wise Discussion

  • Revisionist stated that the OP 2 had performed second marriage and had deserted her, but the said fact was not dealt with by the lower Court and the finding had been recorded that she was unable to show why she was living separately.
  • The fact that some property was sold by the revisionist and out of that money she was maintaining her children, could not be inferred that the revisionist had lost her opportunity for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
  • The finding that revisionist was unable to state as to whether her children were literate or illiterate or how much they were educated, would be a perverse finding for determination of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
  • The court below has further recorded a finding that all the three children were settled by her; thus, she was having means to sustain herself. If some income was received by her out of sold property, it does not mean that she would sustain throughout life.
  • The court below has further recorded a finding that the opposite party 2 stated the fact that revisionist had illicit relation with Ram Singh @ Manjeet Singh and the said fact was not denied by her. The said finding is also perverse because statement of fact cannot be relied on because it will have serious repercussions unless it is proved.

In Court’s opinion, the lower Court had rejected the application without application of mind, hence the matter was remanded to the Court below to take a fresh decision. [Krishna Devi v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 303, decided on 4-5-2022]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Vivek Kumar Birla and Vikas Budhwar, JJ., held that the law has been settled, that use of loudspeaker from mosque is not a fundamental right.

Petitioner’s Counsel filed the present petitioner for the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned rejection letter/order dated 03.12.2021 passed by respondent 3-S.D.M. Tehsil Bisauli, District Budaun, on application dated 20.08.2021 of the petitioner, (whereby permission has been rejected for playing loudspeaker/mike on the said mosque, at the time azan.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents 2 and 3 for granting permission to the petitioner for playing loudspeaker/mike on mosque (Noori Masjid) at the time of azan, situated at Village Dhoranpur, Tehsil Bisauli, District Budaun within stipulated period.

iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) To award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

Petitioner’s counsel contended that the order impugned was wholly illegal and violates the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner to run loudspeaker from the mosque.

High Court observed that use of loudspeaker from the mosque is not a fundamental right and dismissed the petition.[Irfan v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 12350 of 2022, decided on 4-5-2022]


Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Rahul Chaturvedi, J., noted that a lady soon after coming to know that her husband got married in clandestine way with some other lady, committed suicide.

The deceased during her lifetime, lodged an FIR against the husband and all his family members under Sections 323, 494, 504, 506, 379 of the Penal Code, 1860 with the allegation that her husband was already married with some other lady and having two children from her and without divorcing her, rather without disclosing the said fact, he got married with the deceased.

Further, after enticing the informant, who was married lady again solemnized marriage with the consent of both.

The family members after getting to know the above-stated started misbehaving, torturing and abusing her and made her life miserable, the atrocities crossed all the limits when her husband under the pressure of his family members virtually deserted her and kept a new lady.

After lodging the FIR, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance on the same day.

In view of the above circumstances, the deceased took the extreme step by consuming some poisonous substance and committed suicide.

Analysis and Decision

In the present matter, the husband of the deceased was going to marry third time.

High Court opined that the FIR for all the practical purposes could be considered as her dying declaration as the deceased herself was the author of the FIR. After lodging the FIR, she committed suicide just the next day after its lodging.

“No Indian lady is ready to share her husband at any cost. They are literally possessive about their husband.” 

“It would be biggest jolt for any married woman that her husband is being shared by some other lady or he is going to marry some other lady.”

In view of the above, Bench stated that it would be impossible to expect any sanity from them.

High Court found the husband to be the main culprit, and to be tried for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Bench directed the trial Court to frame the charge as early as possible and initiate the trial of the accused persons. [Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 279, decided on 7-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Revisionist :- Shailesh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court:  Stating that the word ‘manufacturing process’ has been expansively defined under the Factories Act even to include Printing Press activity as a manufacturing process whereas in common parlance Printing Press cannot be termed as a ‘manufacturing process’, Pankaj Bhatia, J., held that, the term ‘manufacturing process’ was added to the ESI Act after the 1989 Amendment, hence, there would be no application of the said term prior to the said amendment.

Instant petition was filed to quash certain orders and recovery certificates whereby the demands had been quantified against the petitioners and they had been directed to pay the said amount in the exercise of the powers conferred under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

Factual Background

The petitioner was an apex cooperative society created under Section 2(a—4) Clause 3 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

Further, it was stated that the rules, regulations and guidelines issued by the State Government were normally applicable to the employees of the petitioner’s society and they enjoyed certain benefits which were admissible to the employees of the State Government.

Petitioner has been running P.C.F. Press and the persons employed in the accounts section were enjoying the benefits of the State Government from time to time which according to the petitioner were far superior to the benefits flowing to the persons who came under the ‘ESI’ Act.

In 2003, respondent 1 issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner’s society should not be made liable for payment of the contribution to the ESI Fund, to which the petitioners raised their objections.

Point for Consideration

Whether the petitioners’ establishment would be covered within the ambit of ‘ESI Act’ by virtue of the mandate of Section 1(4) of the ESI Act as the parties are not at issue that no notification has been issued under Section 1(5) of the Act?

Analysis and Decision

In the present matter, the demand was raised for an amount of Rs 33,846 for the employer’s contribution for the employees working in the account section of PCF Press for the period January 1981 to September 1986 and from January 1988 to May 1989.

Hence, the demand pertaining to the period prior to 20-10-1989 when the definition of ‘manufacturing process’ under Section 2(14-AA) was inserted under the ESI Act.

After the amended Act No. 29 of 1989, the word ‘manufacturing process’ has been expansively defined under the Factories Act even to include Printing Press activity as a manufacturing process whereas in common parlance Printing Press cannot be termed as a ‘manufacturing process’.

Therefore, the Court held that, the applicability of the provisions of ‘ESI Act’ on the petitioner would clearly not be covered by Section 1(4) of the ‘ESI Act’ for the period prior to 21-10-1989 and thus, the demand was not justified.

In view of the above discussion, petition was allowed. [U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine All 227, decided on 20-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Petitioner:- Shireesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent:- Shishir Pradhan

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: While addressing a matter with regard to anticipatory bail, Krishan Pahal, J., observed that, Money Laundering being an offence is economic threat to national interest and is committed by the white-collar offenders who are deeply rooted in society and cannot be traced out easily.

An anticipatory bail application had been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to enlarge him on bail.

Analysis, Law and Decision


High Court stated that Section 45 of the PMLA Act provides two conditions that are mandatory in nature and must be complied with before granting bail to the accused of an offence.

The above was reiterated in the case of Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1.

Further, in the case of Union of India v. Varinder Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1314, Supreme Court observed that Section 45 of the PMLA Act imposes conditions for the grant of bail. Bail cannot be granted without complying with the requirements of Section 45 of PMLA Act.

The Bench expressed that the PMLA Act, 2002 deals with the offence of money laundering and Parliament enacted this law to deal and curb the activities of money laundering.

The provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure will not be applicable until there is no specific provision given in PML Act, 2002.

Elaborating further, Court stated that offences like money laundering are committed with proper conspiracy, deliberate design with the motive of personal gain regardless of the consequences to the society and economy of the Country.

Hence, for money launderers “jail is the rule and bail is an exception”.

Concluding the matter, Court held that on prima facie reading of material on record and considering parameters of Section 45(1) PMLA as well as the gravity of the alleged offences, the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offences or that he was not likely to commit such offence while on bail. [Anirudh Kamal Shukla v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine All 176, decided on 21-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon

Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I., Shiv P. Shukla

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Expressing that Courts of law are meant for imparting justice, Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., observed that more often the process of Court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design.

By the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings under Sections 406 IPC and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

Complainant had filed a complaint arraigning the four accused inter alia with the allegations that the marriage of her daughter was fixed with applicant 1. Pre-marriage ceremonies were held, in which Rs 100,000 was given to Mahesh Yadav, one gold ring and sum of Rs 11,000. In addition, thereof, money and clothes were given to the person attended the ceromancies. The Complainant had also made the bookings of all necessary things for which about Rs 50,000 was given as advance. Later, demand of Rs 50,000, motorcycle, cash and gold chain was made by the accused.

In view of the complaint, the Magistrate summoned the applicants to face trial. The said summoning order has been challenged in the present application.

After this Court’s order on 3-32022, the applicants kept playing hide and seek with the Court and tried to obtain interim order from this Court by hook or crook and when the applicants failed to achieve their nefarious design, when the case was taken up by applicants counsel that the applicants were not responding to calls and the Court may pass orders.

In Court’s opinion, the applicants tried to misguide the Court by stating that compromise had been arrived between the parties, but the fact was that no compromise had been effected.

“…applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands and filed false affidavit before this Court that the matter has been compromised, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.”

“…it appears that the applicants have no respect to the orders of this court.”

Additionally, the Bench held that the judicial process cannot become an instrument for oppression for abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice, for the reason that the Court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.

“The Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts.”

Lastly, the High Court held that the applicants had misused the process of law by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on false facts that the matter has been compromised

Fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest order to approach the court, failing which the litigant should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time.[Umesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., Application U/S 42 No. 28762 of 2021, decided on 13-4-2022]


Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A Kumar Srivastava, Manish Kumar

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a big development in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has cancelled the bail of the accused Ashish Sharma after observing that the Allahabad High Court had shown a “tearing hurry” in entertaining and granting bail to Mishra.

What happened in Lakhimpur Kheri?

On 29.09.2021, several farmers had gathered in the Khairaitya village in Lakhimpur Kheri District to celebrate the birth anniversary of Sardar Bhagat Singh and to protest against the Indian Agricultural Acts of 2020. During this gathering, the farmers objected to certain comments made by Ajay Mishra, Union Minister of State for Home.

On 03.10.2021, an annual Dangal (wrestling) competition was being organised by the accused Ashish Mishra. The program was to be attended by Ajay Mishra, as well as Keshav Prasad Maurya, Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. A crowd of farmers started gathering near the helipad in the morning of 03.10.2021. The route of the Chief Guest was thus changed to take him by road. But the changed road route was also passing in front of the Maharaja Agrasen Inter College, where the protesting farmers had been gathering in large numbers. This led the authorities to take recourse to yet another alternative way to reach the Dangal venue.

In the meantime, some supporters of Ashish Mishra, who were travelling by a car to the Dangal venue, were statedly attacked by certain farmers. A hoarding board that displayed pictures of Ajay Mishra and the Accused was also damaged.

Agitated with these happening, Mishra had allegedly conspired with his aides and confidants, and had allegedly drove into the crowd of the returning farmers and hit them with an intention to kill. Resultantly, many farmers and other persons were crushed by the vehicles.

Accuses Mishra and his co¬accused Sumit Jaiswal then escaped by running towards a nearby sugarcane field while taking cover by firing their weapons.

As a consequence of this incident, four farmers, one journalist, the driver of one of the vehicles, and two others, were killed. Nearly ten farmers suffered major and minor injuries.

Supreme Court’s ruling

Victims not heard

Holding that, in the case at hand, the ‘victims’ have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the Accused, the Court expressed its disappointment with the manner in which the High Court failed to acknowledge the right of the victims.

It is important to note that the Counsel for the ‘victims’ had got disconnected from the online proceedings and could not make effective submissions before the High Court. Thereafter, an application seeking a rehearing was also moved on the same ground but the same was not considered by the High Court while granting bail to Mishra.

Relevant considerations overlooked by High Court

Instead of looking into aspects such as the nature and gravity of the offence; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused or victims; likelihood of the accused fleeing; likelihood of tampering with the evidence and witnesses and the impact that his release may have on the trial and the society at large; the High Court adopted a myopic view of the evidence on the record and proceeded to decide the case on merits.

It took into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established parameters for grant of bail.

“It has been ruled on numerous occasions that a F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of events. While the allegations in the F.I.R., that the accused used his firearm and the subsequent post-mortem and injury reports may have some limited bearing, there was no legal necessity to give undue weightage to the same.”

Conclusion

The Court, hence, cancelled Mishra’s bail, without depriving him of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. The following factors weighed in with the Court:

  • irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail;
  • the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case;
  • denial of victims’ right to participate in the proceedings; and
  • the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused.

“This Court is tasked with ensuring that neither the right of an accused to seek bail pending trial is expropriated, nor the ‘victim’ or the State are denuded of their right to oppose such a prayer. In a situation like this, and with a view to balance the competing rights, this Court has been invariably remanding the matter(s) back to the High Court for a fresh consideration.”

The Court was also of the view that ends of justice would be adequately met by remitting this case to the High Court for a fresh adjudication of the bail application of the Accused, in a fair, impartial and   dispassionate manner.

Mishra has to surrender within a week.

[Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453, decided on 18.04.2022]


*Judgment by: Justice Surya Kant


Counsels

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave

For Accused: Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar

For State: Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Expressing that Students travelling freely to different parts of the country in the quest for knowledge is the true celebration of India diversity and a vivid manifestation of India’s unity, Ajay Bhanot, J., stated that it is the duty of the people of the hosting State to create enabling conditions for visiting scholars to learn and to live the constitutional values of our nation.

“…obligation of the young scholars to imbibe and adhere to such values.”

An FIR was filed under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 124A of Penal Code, 1860.

Applicants had raised pro-Pakistan slogans and also sloganeered against India in the aftermath of an Indo-Pak match. They also made like posts on social media and instigated civil disorder in the country.

Applicants’ counsel contended that the present case was the result of student rivalries over trivial issues. The applicants did not raise anti-India and pro-Pakistan slogans. Further, it was submitted that the applicants were responsible Indian citizens who hailed from the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is the very embodiment of Indian values.

It was also stated that the applicants truly represented Kashmiriyat defined by syncretist ideals and composite culture. The said ideals from the essence of Indian values are diversely expressed in various parts of the country.

With regard to the trial moving at a snail’s pace, it was contended that it is not likely to conclude any time soon. Hence, the inordinate delay in the trial would lead to indefinite detention of the applicants.

Analysis, Law and Decision


High Court while addressing the matter, expressed that,

“The unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds which will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans.”

Further, the Court added that, the foundations of our nation are more enduring and eternal ideals bind the indestructible unity of India. Every citizen of the country is the custodian, and the State is the sentinel of the unity of India and the constitutional values of the nation.

In the present matter, since the submissions of the counsel for the applicants could not be disputed on behalf of the State, the applicants were entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Hence, the bail application was allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicants will not influence any witness.

(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

[Inayat Altaf Shekh v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Appl. No. 53115 of 2021, decide don 30-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Applicant:- Santosh Kumar Singh, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Sudhakar Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party:- G.A.

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Shri Umesh Chandra Sharma, to be an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court, with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office, till 31-12-2023.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 24-3-2022]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Siddhartha Varma, J., held that it is the bounden duty of the enquiry officer to have seen whether the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence which was led by it.

A station house officer had given information to the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner under influence of alcohol had misbehaved with the private cook Shamshad Ahmad. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended.

An enquiry report was filed as per which the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges levied against him and a major punishment of removal was proposed under Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed, and the petitioner was removed from service.

Since the revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed, instant writ petition was filed.

High Court noted that impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.

Bench added that, no individual who had seen the incident was summoned as an eyewitness to prove the incident. Also, there was only a medical report that there was a suspicion on account of the fact that there was a smell coming of alcohol from the petitioner while there was no blood report or urine report of the petitioner which actually would have proved that the petitioner had actually consumed liquor/alcohol to an extent that he was in a state of drunkenness.

Hence, the petition was allowed in view of the above. [Sangram Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 169, decided on 10-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishan Deo Giri

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: While expressing that medical and legal fields are more a service than a profession especially the stream of oncology which deals with life and death, Krishan Pahal, J., held that “Corruption is a termite in every system.”

High Court also observed that, the offence of Corruption is against the society and Court has to balance the fundamental rights of the accused to the legitimate concerns of the society at large vis-a-vis the investigating agency.

On the basis of a complaint by Anmol Sachan, PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow against Dr Sunita Gupta and her husband Dr Rajeev Gupta, the present case was registered under Section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

What was alleged in the complaint?

It was alleged that Dr Sunita was in possession of disproportionate assets to her known sources of income to the tune of Rs 1,80,96,585.33 which she cannot satisfactorily account for. The husband of doctor Sunita also abetted the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by Dr Sunita Gupta.

CBI team had found and seized the currency notes amounting to Rs 1.59 crore from official residence of Dr Sunita Gupta.

The applicant or any other person (Doctors/Hospital Owners) summoned/examined during the investigation could not produce any valid documentary evidence in support of their statement or explanation offered by applicant that the total amount of Rs 1.59 crore seized from the official residence of Dr Sunita Gupta on 12/07/2016 was actually earned by applicant by indulging in private practice, after office hours.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench stated that applicant’s counsel failed to accord any tenable explanation for the recovered amount and further argued that the applicant was not authorized to take private practice as he was employed in a government institution.

Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 was cited by this Court.

Medical practitioner administer an oath at the time of convocation as provided by the Indian Medical Association which is an extension of Hippocratic oath taken the world over. The oath is not merely a formality. It has to be observed and followed in letter and spirit. It is on these lines that the apex medical education regulator, National Medical Commission has suggested that the Hippocratic oath be replaced by ‘CHARAK SHAPATH’ during the convocation ceremony for graduates in medical services.

High Court expressed that,

Corruption is a termite in every system. Once it enters the system, it goes on increasing.

Elaborating further on corruption, the Bench added that it is the root cause of all the problems, such as poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, social unrest. The menace has to be put to account.

Lastly, the Court stated that it has to ensure that there is no unwarranted misuse or abuse of process to encroach upon the life and liberty of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Also, the Court has to see that the Rule of Law is followed and the administration of justice is not hampered, the guilty are brought to book.

In view of the above anticipatory bail application was dismissed. [Dr Rajeev Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 155, decided on 25-2-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Applicant: – Purnendu Chakravarty

Counsel for Opposite Party:- Anurag Kumar Singh

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J., while addressing a matter with regard to recalling of the witnesses expressed that, Section 311 of the Code confers a wide discretion on the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require.

Present application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed to quash the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge arising out of crime registered under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860, by which two applications filed by the applicant/accused under Section 311 of the Code have been rejected.

Analysis, Law and Discussion

High Court noted that trial Court by its order dismissed the applications for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination and rejected the submission urged on behalf of the applicant on the ground that the defence had elaborately cross-examined.

If there is any contradiction or ambiguity in the prosecution evidence. It is a settled position of law that the accused would be entitled to benefit of the doubt.

Trial Court’s order had been assailed on two grounds:

  • After reading the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 the identity of scribe Suresh Singh was not clear.
  • If the complaint had been written by Suresh Singh, son of Rama Shankar who died about one year before the incident, in that case, the genesis of the prosecution case would be proved false.

Section 311 is manifestly in two parts, the first part of the Section has given discretion to the Court and enables it any stage of an inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Code, (a) to summon anyone as a witness, or (b) to examine any person in the Court, or (c) to recall and re-examine any person whose evidence has already been recorded; on the other hand, the second part of the Section is mandatory and imposes an obligation on the Court, to do one of aforesaid three things if the new evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case.

Further, the Court observed that, Section 311 of the Code gave wide power to the Court to summon a material witness or to examine a person present on Court or to recall a witness already examined.

The said Section confers a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice require.

The discretion given by the first part is very wide and its very width requires a corresponding caution on the part of the court. But the second part does not allow any discretion; it binds the court to examine fresh evidence and the only condition prescribed is that this evidence must be essential to the just decision of the case. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case and has to be determined by the presiding Judge [Ram Jeet v. State of U.P., AIR 1958 All 439]

In the present matter, Bench observed that, PW-1 is not an eyewitness of the incident, the FIR had been lodged by PW-1 after about 46 hours of the incident on the basis of information received from PW-2.

The application for recalling PW-1 had been filed after about 4 years of recording the statement-in-chief of the PW1 and another application for recalling PW-5 filed after about one year of recording the examination-in-chief of PW-5.

In Court’s opinion, the trial judge gave well-founded reasons for rejecting the applications.

Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial court was affirmed and the present application under Section 311 of the Code was dismissed.[Bheem Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 40, decided on 18-1-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for the Applicant: Neeraj Pandey, Om Prakash Singh Sikarwar

Counsel for the OP: G.A.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: While expressing that “Caste system in our society is deeply rooted, we boast ourselves as educated society, but we live our lives with double standards” Rahul Chaturvedi, J., granted bail to an accused of cold-blooded murder in an alleged honour killing case.

A criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge arising out of a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.

Background

Informant’s younger brother was Gram Panchayat Adhikari who belonged to the scheduled caste community. During his training period, he had developed some amount of intimacy with his course-mate. Both of them performed registered marriage and started residing as husband and wife.

The above-said marriage raised eyebrows of all family members of the girl, and they all got infuriated and started waiting for the time to eliminate the deceased. After hatching conspiracy in July 2021, the deceased was ambushed by two motorcycle riders and was assaulted with a sharp-edged weapon and making his uncle who accompanied whim seriously injured.

Informant alleged that applicants on account of their previous enmity had actively participated in the said offence and thus facilitated them to commit the said cold-blooded, day light murder.

Analysis and Discussion

Caste system in our society is deep rooted, we boast ourselves as educated society, but we live our lives with double standards. Even after 75 years of Independence we are not able to get out with this social menace. This is pitiable and tragic. It is the moral duty of those sane person, who are well-off, to protect the under-privileged and downtrodden, so that they feel themselves safe, secure and comfortable. Simultaneously, the other group also feel that they are the integral and inseparable part of the society, and it is in the larger interest of the country and high time for the introspection for everyone to give serious thought over the matter.

High Court while expressing the above, stated that it is mind-boggling that the informant’s counsel complained that the widow of the deceased and his other family members were at sun and wanted to have safe shelter.

Bench prima facie found the submission of appellant’s counsel appealing and convincing with regard to the applicant being rank outsiders and having no concern whatsoever in the commission of an offence. Neither from applicant nor his pointing out had recovered any incriminating material.

The Court directed that S.S.P. Gorakhpur would provide necessary security to the family members of the deceased and thereafter have periodical assessment deploy the requisite security during the trial and take stringent action against every person who wants to the law in his hands.

Taking into consideration the above, Bench opined that the appellant made out a case for bail.

Following were the bail conditions:

  1. Appellant would fully cooperate in the conclusion of trial within 1 year and any tampering or willing tactics on the part of the appellant to delay the trial would warrant the automatic cancellation of bail.
  2. Appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed or evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of the said condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
  3. Appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
  4. In case the appellant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC.
  5. Appellant shall remain present in-person before the trial court on dates fixed for:

(i) opening of the case

(ii) framing of charge and

(iii)recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC

If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant was deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Gorakhpur was set aside. [Sanni Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 44, decided on 20-1-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Appellant: – Manish Gupta, Vinay Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: – G.A., Arvind Kumar, Rahul Chaudhary

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Rajeev Singh, J., reiterated that under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an FIR i.e. First Information Report can be quashed in view of the settlement terms.

Application under Section 482 CrPC was filed with a request that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Court in relation to FIR under Sections 323, 354, 498A, 504 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also quashed the entire proceeding in relation to the said FIR.

In the present case, the investigation was started and mediation was also initiated before the court below, but applicant No.1 was not satisfied with the mediation proceeding initiated before the court below, hence, the present application was filed and with the consent of counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the opposite party 4, the matter was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 31.07.2020.

The matter was successfully concluded, and a settlement agreement was executed between the parties and OP 4 joined her matrimonial home on 7-3-2021 and started enjoying her life with her husband and children.

In the case of Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 SCC OnLine All 73  the provision of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not existing, therefore, there was a dilemma to get the remedy of pre-arrest during the investigation, then it was clarified by this Court that High Court has no inherent powers, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the arrest of accused persons during the course of investigation, but it was clarified that High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the police officer for misusing his legal power in relation to arrest and FIR can be quashed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is covered under the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Bhajan Lal and the present case law laid down the by the Supreme Court in the cases as discussed.

Analysis and Decision

High Court stated that, as in the decision of Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.,1989 SCC OnLine All 73, this Court held that Investigating Officer cannot be restrained from arresting the accused of a cognizable offence. Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and  Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 SCC OnLine All 73 already held that FIR and its consequential proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Therefore, in the present matter, Bench opined that impugned FIR and its consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed in terms of the settlement agreement of parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present application was allowed and FIR was quashed. [Ishwar Singhal v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 28, decided on 11-1-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Applicant:- Durgesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party:- G.A., Vinod Kumar

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi, JJ., enhances quantum of award of a non-earning member in a motor accident claim, while referring to the Supreme Court decision in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1060.

Present appeal had been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the decision of Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 1,80, 000 as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

The appeal was preferred for the purpose of enhancement of quantum.

By the present claimant’s appeal, appellant claimed enhancement of award for the death of a child who was 7 years old at the time of his death.

Appellant’s counsel submitted that the deceased was a brilliant student and he had very bright future, but the said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. Further, it was added that the notional income of the deceased was taken Rs 15,000 per annum by the Tribunal and held that the contribution of the deceased towards his family was only assumed as 1/2 of his income and in this way the Tribunal has awarded only 1/2 of his income as compensation, which was not just and proper.

Supreme Court decided the controversy and settled the law regarding the death of a child in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1060, wherein it was stated that in spite of repeated directions, Scheduled-II of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income of Rs 15,000 per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable.

Hence, the Supreme Court took the notional income of the deceased at Rs 25,000 per annum, hence Court is opined that notional income of the deceased must be assumed Rs 25,000 as he was a non-earning member.

Court further expressed that, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier ‘15’ as prescribed in Scheduled-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it comes to Rs 3,75,000/- towards loss of dependency.

Therefore, appellants 1 and 2 were entitled to the following amounts towards compensation:

(i) Loss of Dependency: 25,000/- X 15 = Rs.3,75,000/-

(ii) Filial consortium: 40,000/- X 2 = Rs.80,000/-

(iii) Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/-

(iv) Total compensation: Rs.4,70,000/-

The Bench also added that in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, (2019) 15 SCC 260, the appellants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to the rate of interest as 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Lastly, the Court concluded by stating that the appeal was partly allowed in view of the above discussion. [Roop Lal v. Suresh Kumar Yadav, 2022 SCC OnLine All 25, decided on 4-1-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Appellant:- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui

Counsel for Respondent:- Vipul Kumar, Shreesh Srivastava

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: J.J. Munir, J., expressed that,

The Members of the Bar are free to hold a meeting to condole the demise of any member or anyone else, but they do not have the right to obstruct the functioning of Courts.

On 17-12-2021, an order was passed requiring the personal presence of the President of Commissioner Court’s Bar Association, Ayodhya and that of the Secretary.

Atul Kumar Dwivedi, appeared on behalf of the President, Commissioner Court’s Bar Association and the Secretary of the said Bar Association. He had filed in Court two personal affidavits, one sworn by Anand Srivastava, President of the Commissioner’s Court Bar Association and the other by Mr Sunil Kumar Singh, Secretary of the said Association.

The affidavits which were filed tendered an unconditional apology for the strikes.

Going by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in District Bar Assn. v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 244, no kind of freedom or right entitles a Bar Association to give a call for any kind of strike or boycott of Courts.

Therefore, the qualified undertaking given by the President and the Secretary of the Bar Association that they will not pass resolutions abstaining from judicial work except in a grave situation is not accepted for the qualifications of it.

Hence, Court ordered that until further orders, the Commissioner’s Court Bar Association, Ayodhya, shall not pass any resolution, abstaining from judicial work, whether styled as a strike or a call to abstain from judicial work, a condolence resolution that has the effect of withdrawing Advocates from judicial work, by whatever name called.

Bench opined that the undertaking given on the basis of which the present order is passed, shall not only apply to the incumbent President and Secretary of the Commissioner’s Court Bar Association, Ayodhya but to all their successors-in-Office.

Court directed that the Additional Commissioner Faizabad (First), Ayodhya Division shall proceed with Appeal No.00911 of 2018, Computerized Case No.C-201804000000911 on a day to day basis and submit a status report also by the next date fixed.

The petition is to be listed on 28-1-2022 by which time, the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division Ayodhya, shall submit a report to this Court indicating whether any resolution obstructs the judicial work or withdrawing the Members of the Bar from their professional duties has been passed by the Bar Association. [Imtiyaj Ali v. Addl. Commissioner Faizabad-I, 2021 SCC OnLine All 956, decided on 23-12-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Petitioner: Mohammad Nauman

Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

On account of the recent spike in the number of COVID-19 positive cases at Prayagraj & Lucknow, from January 03, 2022, onwards, Hon’ble Courts at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & its Bench at Lucknow, shall function in virtual mode only, till further orders.

All concerned are requested to make themselves aware of the detailed advisories/guidelines, made available on the official website of the Court, separately.


Allahabad High Court

[Notice dt. 2-1-2022]