CRLR/5217 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 27-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 154  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal law-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161, 164, 173, 190(1)(b), 200, 202 & 397-Final Report - Protest Petition - Rejection - Powers of Magistrate - Contradictory St.ments of prosecutrix - St.ment under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicating accused and later exculpatory St.ment under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Final report submitted by police concluding no offence made out - Magistrate accepted final report and rejected protest petition - Held, Magistrate not bound by police conclusions and may independently assess material on record - St.ment under Section 164 Cr.P.C., being judicial in nature, carries greater probative value than one under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - Protest petition based on retracted version rightly dismissed - No illegality or perversity in Magistrate's order - Revision dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 17 to 20) HELD: In light of aforesaid dictum of this Hon'ble Court in Pakhandu (supra) undoubtedly the Magistrate is at liberty to adopted all the four courses enumerated in the said judgment on production of a closure report by police after investigation into a FIR to the effect that complicity of the accused is not found in the alleged offence or no alleged offence has not been found to be committed. (Para 14) In the present case, learned Magistrate after placing reliance on closure report filed by the police after conclusion of an investigation, adopted Ist course as St.d in Pakhandu (supra) and accepted closure report submitted by police in favour of the accused persons whose name has been surfaced during investigation, placing reliance on St.ment of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and affidavits of the father and uncle (phupha) of the prosecutrix during the course of investigation which was made part of investigation. (Para 15) The St.ment made by the prosecutrix/victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate stands on a high pedestal and a sanctity is attached on such St.ment recorded during the course of investigation, than that of her St.ment recorded under Section 161 of the Code by the Investigating Officer. (Para 18) With foregoing discussion this court does not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate, whereby the final report filed by the police after investigation in the case in favour of accused persons placing reliance on St.ment of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as affidavits filed by father and uncle of the victim, has been accepted and protest petition filed by the prosecutrix has been dismissed. (para 19) Revision Application dismissed. (E-14)

Title: Abbas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

English hearing

CRLR/1237 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 03-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 149  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 227 - Discharge - Abuse of process of law - Co-accused of the same Case crime number have been acquitted - Effect - Discharge application of other co-accused was rejected - Validity challenged - Held, once for identical charges and on the basis of the identical evidence based on the testimonies of the identical witnesses, co- accused of the same case crime number have been acquitted from the charges, then if other co-accused are permitted to be tried by the trial court without there being any new evidence on record, there would be one and the only one conclusion i.e. their acquittal from the charges, as such allowing to proceed the second trial would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. (Para 22) Criminal Revision allowed. (E-1)

Title: Shamima & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manjive Shukla

English hearing

CRLA/2696/1981 Judgment/Order Date: 21-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 125  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 - Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 & 49 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rules 12 & 98 - Applicability of 2000 Act retrospectively - All persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001 would be treated as juvenile. If the accused claiming plea of juvenility, was less than 18 years of age, on the date of commission of offence, he is entitled to be treated as juvenile and will be given benefit as per 2000 Act, notwithstanding the fact that the accused was not entitled to the benefit of being a juvenile on the date of offence under Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, as Act was passed after commissioning of this offence. In the instant case the Juvenile in conflict of law, dealt with under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 inspite of the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1976 and during trial of the case Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enacted and commenced. (Para 83, 84) B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 - Common object - Unlawful assembly - Natural witness - Eyewitness credibility - Minor inconsistencies - In the instant case at around 12:00 hours in the day, the deceased, who was the brother of informant was going to his house to take meal from his shop. Accused persons armed with spears (Barchhai) , Tabbals, lathis, all belonging to informant's village waylaid the deceased and attacked him by their weapons. Deceased raised an alarm, the informant and wife of deceased rushed to the spot. Accused persons also gave beating to the informant and wife of the deceased. In the meantime, challenged the accused whereupon they ran away towards east. Deceased died on the spot. Motive was that the deceased was a witness in the murder case and had deposed against the one of accused. Held : It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that surviving accused had formed unlawful assembly together with co- accused on the date and time of the incident and in prosecution of common objection of the assembly they brutally assaulted the deceased in concerted manner by their respective weapons with intention to kill him and caused fatal injuries on his person, which was sufficient to cause death and on account of the injuries sustained in the incident he died instantaneously. Only due to the fact that no punctured would was found on the person of the deceased, the presence of accused persons who were said to be armed with Barchhai cannot be doubted. Also only due to fact that informant with whom accused persons had strong enmity was spared in the incident by causing simple injuries and was not assaulted by dangerous weapons, his presence cannot be doubted as he stated in his evidence that he and his sister-in-law were rescued by witnesses. PW-5 Jagdish Narain has testified in his evidence that the incident occurred infront of the house and he had seen the incident. This fact is stated in FIR itself that house of Jagdish Narain lies in front of the place of incident and on that reason his presence on the spot is natural as he is supposed to be a witness of the spot and only on account of prior enmity with some accused persons his evidence cannot be brushed aside. From medical evidence, the mode and manner of the incident, and the injuries found on the person of the deceased and injured witnesses, stand proved, and the sworn testimony of the witnesses of fact/eye- witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Appeal Dismissed (Para 77, 78, 79, 81, 90) Dismissed. (E-5)

Title: Devendra Kumar @ Jhunna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

English hearing

CRLA/659/1984 Judgment/Order Date: 25-11-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 120  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 â?? Section - 313 - Indian Penal Code,186 - Sections â?? 147, 148, 149, 302 & 307- Appeal â?? against conviction & sentence â?? FIR â?? offence of murder - investigation â?? PMR â?? site plant â?? charge-sheet â?? plea taken that they were falsely implicated due to enmity â?? conviction & sentence - court finds that - (i) during pendency of appeal out of 8 accused persons 6 were died therefore against them appeal had abated, (ii) pw-1 who was an injured witness was not there on spot, (iii) there was an enmity between the injured and accused persons, (iv) pw-1 had not informed the first informant about incident himself, (v) pw-1 was such a witness who could not be absolutely relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused, (vi) surviving both appellants were carrying lathies were not armed in such a manner as would make it evident that they had gone with a premediated mind to do away with the deceased - court inclined to hold that, Conviction of the accused persons could not be based on the testimony of an eye-witness who was not believable â??â?? hence, appeal succeeds and is allowed - conviction and sentence is set aside â?? direction issued, accordingly. (Para â?? 11, 13, 14, 15) Criminal Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi

English hearing

CRLA/651/1983 Judgment/Order Date: 28-11-2024 (2025) 1 ILRA 104  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Appeal-Eye Witnesses-Eye- witnesses were not there on the spot at all- eye witnesses not recognized the dacoits and only to implicate certain known inimical persons, the first information report got lodged-FIR was also ante-timed-the case of the prosecution does not inspire confidence - cooked up story only to implicate known persons who were impugned judgment set aside. Appeals allowed. (E-9)

Title: Jagdish Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi

English hearing

CRLA/351 /2005 Judgment/Order Date: 22-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 74  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 8 - Motive - In cases based on the direct evidence of witnesses, the same should be decided on the basis of the quality and probative value of such eye-witnesses. Where the direct evidence is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident. It assumes importance only in cases that rest on circumstantial evidence. Mere absence of proof of motive for the commission of a crime cannot be a ground to presume the innocence of an accused if his involvement is otherwise established. Prosecution is not obliged to prove those facts which are either impossible to prove or are locked up in the mind of the accused as to what made them commit the crime. In the instant case, the family of the deceased and the accused were having enmity regarding a land. The accused had made hindrance in the access of the informant to the said land, and altercations had occurred many times regarding the same. (Paras 28, 29) B. Criminal Law - Credibility of Related Witnesses - Natural witness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 118 & 134 - Merely because the witnesses are close relatives of the victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects the credibility of a witness. A relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. If the prosecution witnesses, who claim to have seen the incident, are natural witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and cannot be doubted, then their relationship with the deceased or the informant is not of much importance. However, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para 39) C. Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Independent witness - If an independent witness has not been produced by the prosecution, the same may not be sufficient to discard the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, who in the opinion of the Court, appears to be the natural witnesses of the incident. (Para 43) D. Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Credibility of Witnesses contradictions, embellishments in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses - Court must bear in mind the set up and the circumstances in which the crime is committed, the quality of evidence, nature and temperament of the witnesses, the level of understanding and power of perception and examination of individual witness and probability in ordinary course of nature about the act complained of as might have been witnessed by the witnesses. Endeavour must be to find out the truth from the evidence on record. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that there cannot be a prosecution case with a cast iron perfection in all respects. Obligations lies upon the courts to analyze, sift and assess the evidence on record, with reference to trustworthiness and truthfulness of the prosecution case, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the evidence without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion about the case of the prosecution. The contradictions, infirmities, that might have been pointed out in prosecution case must be assessed with the yardsticks of probabilities of the existence of a fact or not. Unless, infirmities and contradictions are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core of the prosecution case, over emphasis may not be applied to such contradictions and infirmities. To judge the credibility of the evidence of witness, one has to look to his evidence, and if any discrepancies found in the ocular account of the witnesses not affecting the root of the say of the witness, the witness may not be labeled as not credit worthy. At the same time, seeking rule of corroboration, mathematical niceties may not be expected. The account of the witnesses must be read as a whole and once the impression is formed that the account contains ring of truth, jettisoning whole of the evidence would amount to doing injustice to a reliable and honest witness. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details, which may not be related to the main cause of prosecution case, and their evidence therefore must be appreciated keeping in mind the power of observation, retention and reproduction of the same by the witness to be judged by human standard. (Par 46) E. Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 157 - Where the F.I.R. is recorded without delay and investigation has started on its basis, delay in dispatch of its copy to the Magistrate cannot, by itself, justify a conclusion that the investigation was tainted. Delay under Section 157 Cr.P.C. for doubting the authenticity of the F.I.R. is not just any delay but only extraordinary and unexplained delay. Delay which is properly explained cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. In the instant case, the deceased, who was injured at that time, was first taken to the police station and thereafter to the District Hospital, Faizabad. Only after that, P.W.-1 again went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. The same cannot be termed either ante-timed or lodged with delay. The prosecution has explained the little delay which occurred in lodging of the F.I.R. properly and with documentation. The Court held that the prosecution's case could not be doubted only on this score. (Paras 32, 33, 34) F. Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34 & 149 - Constructive Criminality - Common Intention and Common Object. Sections 34 & 149 of the IPC both deal with the concept of constructive criminality, i.e., vicarious liability of one person for the acts of others. However, a clear distinction exists between common intention u/s 34 and common object u/s 149. Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and concerted action, supported by evidence of prior meeting of minds. In contrast, common object under Section 149 does not necessitate prior concert or preplanning. While Section 34 requires active participation in the crime, especially where physical violence is involved, Section 149 imposes liability merely by virtue of membership in an unlawful assembly sharing a common object, even without active participation. Existence of common intention must be established by the prosecution with credible evidence. Notably, Section 34 is not attracted by mere common intention unless some act is done in furtherance of that intention. In cases where fewer than five accused are finally convicted under Section 149 due to acquittals, the Court may invoke Section 34 instead, depending on the facts. However, substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 should not prejudice the accused unless the common object necessarily involves a common intention. In the present case the evidence established that the three appellants arrived together, assaulted the deceased inside his house, dragged him outside and assaulted him again in front of the temple, and then fled together. Their coordinated actions demonstrated a pre-designed plan and shared common intention. Therefore, they were rightly convicted under Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC. (Para 64) Dismissed. (E-5)

Title: Annu Khatik & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sangeeta Chandra,Mohd Faiz Alam Khan

English hearing

BAIL/41474/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 24-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 66  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 307- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439-Bail - Second Bail Application - Prolonged Incarceration - Delay in Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Accused in custody for over 7 years and 9 months - Trial remained stalled due to pendency of challenge to summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before Supreme Court - Only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses examined - No likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future - Held, prolonged detention without progress in trial is violative of right to speedy trial under Article 21 - Bail not to be withheld as punishment - Bail granted. (Paras 15,16, and 17) HELD: It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para 15) It is deeply regrettable that the applicant has been languishing in jail for approximately seven years and nine months, with the trial having remained stagnant since 25.10.2019. Such prolonged incarceration, coupled with the complete lack of progress in the trial, is a serious infringement on the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping the applicant in custody under these circumstances, when there is no realistic possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, is both unjust and unwarranted. Justice demands that the applicant's continued detention be reconsidered, and appropriate relief be granted without delay. (Para 16) Having heard learned counsels for the parties, taking into consideration the circumstances of the instant case as three accused persons are still absconding, there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future and the fact that there are sixteen witnesses to be examined of which three have been examined; furthermore in the case of summoning additional accused U/s 319 Cr.P.C., the St.ments of already examined witnesses are to be recorded again and the trial shall almost proceed de-novo as also in the light of aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. (Para 17) Bail application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Sarvajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Krishan Pahal

English hearing

BAIL/39835/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 10-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 61  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 63, 65(2), 351(2) & 332(c) - Rape - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections ¾, 2(1)d, 29 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 180, 183 - Bail - As per FIR, informant woke up in morning, not find his daughter on bed - Noticed that another room locked from inside and when peeped through window, he saw applicant was committing rape upon his daughter by pressing her mouth - When informant shouted and called his wife, applicant by opening door, ran away by pushing him extending threat of dire consequences. (Para 3) Applicant submitted that FIR was lodged after delay of 17 hours, without any plausible explanation, informant in his St.ment reiterated prosecution case but there are contradictions in St.ments of victim. (Para 4) Held, from perusal of St.ments of victim, it was clear that applicant had forcibly took her to another room, bolted room and committed misdeed with her. (Para 10) As per medical examination report of victim, there was no sign of any force was concerned, it was misconceived as in supplementary medico-legal examination report, final opinion was reserved pending on availability of FSL report, sexual violence cannot be ruled out - No any material on record to presume false implication of applicant and to disbelieve St.ments of minor victim, thus no any ground to release applicant on bail. (Para 15, 18) Bail application rejected. (E-13)

Title: Suraj Kumar @ Vishwapratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sanjay Kumar Singh

English hearing

BAIL/35494/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 21-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 57  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 64, 74 & 351 - Evidence Act,1875 - Section 65B - Rape - CCTV footage show the presence of applicant and victim together in a hotel and WhatsApp chatting proof that applicant was taking advantage of withdrawing the case lodged by him against the victim's brother and used it to make physical relation with her - There is no inconsistency in the FIR version and St.ment of victim u/s 180 and 183 of BNSS - Effect - Held, from the medical examination report, it reflects that on protesting, victim was beaten by the applicant. The said factual aspects of the matter are corroborated from the CCTV footage of hotel - WhatsApp chatting, which is supported by a certificate of victim u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act also, the aforesaid allegations of the victim is prima-facie corroborated - The alleged act of the applicant is serious blow to victim's supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim - High Court found no good ground to disbelieve the St.ment of victim. (Para 6 and 8) Bail application rejected. (E-1)

Title: Om Prakash Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sanjay Kumar Singh

English hearing

BAIL/29850/2020 Judgment/Order Date: 21-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 53  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120 - B - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 362 (Now Section 403, BNSS 2023) - Bail - Application for modification of order - Maintainability - High Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 enlarged applicant on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in like amount to satisfaction of Court concerned. (Para 2) Applicant contended that he lodged in jail for long time and unable to arrange sureties and can be released on filing personal bonds without monetary obligations. (Para 4) Held, taking note of fact that applicant though released earlier on bail has remained in custody since 15.07.2019 on account of non-fulfilment of condition of providing one surety of his family member, prayer for modification of condition granted - Thus, by allowing said application, Court deleted condition mentioned in impugned order. (Para 15, 17) Modification application allowed. (E-13)

Title: Sreedhar Prasad Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashutosh Srivastava

English hearing

BAIL/25993/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 20-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 17  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 302 & 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 309 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15(3), 21, 21-A, 45, 47, 39(e) & 39(f) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 2(14) (v), 2 (22), 2(21), 30, 31 & 37 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sections 2(d), 3, 4, 13, 14 & 15 - UP Jail Manual, 2022 - Rule 335, 336, 337, 339 - Model Prison Manual, 2016 - Rules 26.36 to 26.44 - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 2(c), 12 & 13 - Bail - Issue before Court was education, welfare, holistic environment for growth, development of strong moral fabric and ethical framework in children of jail inmates who reside in jails with them - Applicant was in jail since 16.10.2023 - Bail application was rejected by trial court on 14.05.2024 - Applicant's 5 year old son was residing with her in prison after her incarceration and entirely dependent on her. (Para 4) Held, applicant has been identified as principal offender who murdered her minor step child and threw his body in tank situated in house and dead body was recovered at pointing out of her - Applicant had motive to commit offence which was grave - Likelihood that applicant had committed offence - No case for bail was made out - Thus, directions to trial court to expedite trial and also to concern officers to prepare child care plan for son of applicant within two months after due consultation with various authorities and experts. (Para 93, 96, 114) Bail application dismissed. (E-13)

Title: Smt. Rekha Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ajay Bhanot

English hearing

BAIL/23378 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 17-01-2025 (2025) 1 ILRA 4  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/21 & 37 - Bail - As per prosecution story, contraband (Heroine) recovered from vehicle in four packets, total weighting 1 kg, vehicle was being driven by applicant/driver in which two other persons were also sitting - When police intercepted vehicle, search was conducted as per established procedure and three packets of 250 gms. each were found from pocket of all three persons sitting in vehicle & anr.packet containing 250 gms contraband (Heroine) was found beneath seat of applicant - Applicant submitted that necessary compliance u/s 50 and 52-A of Act were not done and sample were not prepared and sent for chemical examination - Co-accused already enlarged on bail and languishing in jail since 28.03.2024. (Para 3,4) Held, argument raised by applicant stands adjudicated on basis of guidelines summarized by Apex Court in judgment rendered in case of Kashif (infra). (Para 27) Looking to huge recovery of contraband (Heroine) from joint possession of applicant and co-accused, also from alleged vehicle, no ground to release applicant on bail - Five other criminal cases registered against applicant and recovery made was above commercial quantify. (Para 28) Bail application rejected. (E-13)

Title: Bajarangi Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

English hearing

SPLA/846 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 21-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 1027  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 - Rule 6(1)(i) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16 - Regularisation - Continuous working - Petitioners have not rendered continuous service over years - Whether this interruption in service was due to their own voluntary absence or was caused by artificial break i.e. a deliberate act on part of employer preventing them from working, a question that requires examination by competent authority - As per Rules authority competent to assess is Selection Committee - Duty of Selection Committee to examine work records, determine nature, cause of absence period - No consideration has been made, nor have petitioners been given opportunity to explain reasons for their absence - Claim of regularization must be reconsidered afresh - Petitioners must be afforded proper opportunity of hearing, including chance to explain period of their absence - Selection Committee shall reconsider entire matter, pass reasoned order - Impugned order, set aside. (Para 9) Appeal allowed. (E-13)

Title: State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

GOVA/43 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 23-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 984  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal Appeal against acquittal - When interference may be offered by the High Court in appeal against acquittal - High Court must be satisfied that the finding recorded by the learned trial court suffers from the vice of perversity. Once that satisfaction is reached, the High Court must further reappraise the evidence through a prism that may allow for a singular conclusion of guilt to arise upon such reappraisal of evidence. It must also be strong enough to be described as nearly absolute, as may not only discard the presumption of innocence that the accused enjoys at the beginning of the trial but also dispel the confirmation of such innocence offered by the order of acquittal. Such conclusion must be free from any benefit of doubt that may arise to the accused on the strength of evidence led at the trial. Where a finding of fact may be recorded either dehors the evidence or contrary to the evidence, or where conclusions may have been drawn contrary to the law, that finding and/or conclusion may be described as perverse. (Para 38, 39, 40) B. Evidence Act,1872 - Minor inconsistencies - It is not the law that prosecution witness must maintain their consistent stand by way of an empirical truth, to establish the credibility of the prosecution witnesses or version. The settled principle in that regard is that evidence must carry a ring of truth. Minor inconsistencies are not to be looked/amplified by the Courts but to be reconciled with the entire weight of evidence.(Para 45) C. Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 - Section 161 - Defence stance that 'X' and the accused had quarreled as was claimed to have been stated by 'X' during her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was never proven. Discrepancy, if at all was never confronted to 'X' during her cross-examination. Once the defence failed to confront 'X' with her alleged previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it never became open to the learned trial court to either rely on that statement or to disbelieve or discredit the prosecution evidence. The right of the defence or the right of the parties to confront a witness with their previous statement is a right that vests with the parties. No confrontation was ever offered to 'X' with any previous statement. At the stage of hearing, it was neither open to the parties nor to the learned trial Court to look into the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to disbelieve the proven facts or to observe that there pre-existed a quarrel between the parties. Findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, to that extent. (Para 46, 60) D. Evidence Act - Defence stance that 'X' and the accused had quarreled - Merely because there may have existed a dispute between the parties, it may not be a stand alone reason to discredit the prosecution story, that was otherwise duly proven. The nature of quarrel was neither specified nor it was shown to be such as may have, prompted 'X' and her family members to therefore rush to make a false accusation against the appellant. Neither the nature of the quarrel nor its date and time were proven. The F.I.R. against the accused is of a heinous offence of rape. Evidence exists both on the strength of ocular evidence offered by 'X' as also other material, in support of the prosecution story (Para 61) E. Rape - Delay in lodging F.I.R. - Some reasonable time may always be consumed by the parties visited with such traumatic occurrences, to rationalize their situation and to chalk out their future course of action. It takes conviction, courage, efforts and sometimes even reference, to lodge an F.I.R. Court may therefore allow for a margin to exist to the informant side and it may not hold it accountable for every hour or day. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., it was not for the learned trial Court to throw out the ocular evidence. (Para 68) F. Rape - Absence of internal injuries or serious external injuries - there is no rule or law available that such injuries must be proved to establish the occurrence of rape. Once it was by the prosecution on the strength of ocular evidence of the victim that she was overpowered or subjugated to the point that her resistance stood broken down or negated, the proof of occurrence through injury would be a medieval construct, but not modern reality. In the first place, the threat practiced by the accused (on the strength of firearm) to cause fatal injury, was proven. Second, it was also proven that 'X' alongwith her fiance were filmed in nude, by the accused. On both counts, sufficient evidence was led by the prosecution that the resistance that may have otherwise been offered, stood neutralized by the accused before committing the above rape. Further, evidence was led by the prosecution to establish that the resistance had been neutralized by establishing that 'R' the younger brother of 'X' aged about 12 years was assaulted and forced out of the 'apartment' before 'X' was filmed nude and thereafter, her fiance, 'S' was forced out of the 'apartment' under the threat of a gun, before rape was committed on 'X'. Once the victim, who is 18 years of age, had been thus subjugated and overpowered mentally, psychologically and physically, to accept the submission that she must be shown to have suffered internal and external injuries, would be ridiculous (Para 62) G. Indian Penal Code, Sections 376, 452 and 506 - Rape - Victim had offered a singular version of the occurrence. Narration of the occurrence has remained consistent from the stage of the F.I.R. being lodged, the statement being recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statement being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and also at the trial. At the trial, the victim 'X' was subjected to extensive cross-examination on many dates. She maintained her stand. Trial Court reached an unsustainable conclusion that the occurrence had not been caused-by referring to the delay, the absence of internal and external injuries and bad relations between the parties. Deposition of 'X' was sufficient to offer conviction since her deposition stands on the higher footing as of an injured witness. Court found it to be a fit case to offer interference with the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the government appeal allowed. The judgment and order acquitting the accused of the charge under Sections 452, 376, 506 set aside. Accused guilty of offence under Sections 376, 452 and 506 I.P.C. (Para 69) Allowed. (E-5)

Title: State of U.P. Vs. Pushpendra alias Gabbar

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saumitra Dayal Singh,Sandeep Jain

English hearing

FAFO/602 /2011 Judgment/Order Date: 09-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 976  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim proceeding - Occurrence of incident - Non production of Station superintendent to proof the route of Bus - Testimony of driver - Relevance - Held, the non production of the station superintendent may not detain this Court considering the testimony of the driver wherein he specifically St.d that on 06.09.2007, the bus returned through Sultanpur and was also parked in Sultanpur at the roadways bus station. (Para 30) B. Practice and procedure - Ground of challenge, as raised in appeal, was neither raised before the Tribunal nor described in memo of appeal - Effect - New ground was raised that no ticket was found from the deceased - Permissibility - Held, the said ground may not detain this Court considering that once the learned Tribunal has specifically indicated about the factum of the accident having occurred on the said date which involved Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the deceased, and having resulted in his death, consequently, the said ground is also rejected. (Para 33 and 34) C. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim proceeding - Occurrence of accident - Proof of driver's involvement in accident - St.ment of driver - Filing of charge-sheet - Relevance - Bimla Devi's case, Mangla Ram's case and Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya's case relied upon - Held, even though the bus driver may not have specifically averred to the factum of the accident on 06.09.2007 yet in the charge sheet which has been filed against the driver, as has been considered by the learned Tribuanl, it clearly emerges that the police authorities were of the view that the driver was involved in the said accident. (Para 35 and 39) D. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Award of compensation - Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of salary of son of deceased, though the salary slip of the deceased was filed - Validity challenged - Held, the learned Tribunal adopted a strange procedure inasmuch as it has placed reliance on the salary slip of the son of the deceased who had been appointed on compassionate grounds - Award of compensation by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the salary of the son of the deceased is not found to be legally sustainable in the eyes of law. (Para 42 and 44) Corporation's Appeal dismissed and Claimant's Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

Title: U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad Vs. Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Abdul Moin

English hearing

FAFO/198 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 18-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 969  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Sections 165 & 166 - Claim proceeding - Negligent driving - Effect of failure in not proving - Ground was taken by the Insurance company to the effect that the claimants failed to prove that the vehicle having been driven negligently and rashly - Acceptability - Held, a perusal of the claim application and the written St.ment would duly indicate that there was clear negligence on the part of the driver. Consequently keeping in view the specific findings of fact as given by learned Tribunal, the said ground is rejected. (Para 21 and 25) B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim proceeding - Occurrence of accident - Filing of charge-sheet against a particular person - Relevance - Strict proof, how far required - Bimla Devi's case and Mangla Ram's case relied upon - Held, the chargesheet indicates that on account of negligence of the driver Shri Shitla Prasad, who was the driver of the concerned vehicle, the said accident had taken place. It is also indicated that the truck concerned has been released on the orders passed by the learned court - Learned tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at a finding of the deceased having died on account of an accident involving the truck. (Para 27, 28 and 33) Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko Vs. Manorama & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Abdul Moin

English hearing

FAFO/151/2013 Judgment/Order Date: 17-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 965  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Compensation - Enhancement in loss of consortium, loss of eSt., funeral expenses claimed - Entitlement - Pranay Sethi's case and Babita's case relied upon - Held, the amount towards loss of eSt., loss of consortium and funeral expenses as awarded by the learned Tribunal stand enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- & Rs.15,000/- respectively. Each of the claimants would be entitled to loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Rate of interest on the amount as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal is also enhanced to 9% per annum. (Para 21, 23 and 24) B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Determination - Savita's case relied upon - Held, the notional income is increased by 30% being the future prospect. Said amount would be added to the notional income of the deceased, upon which deduction as done by the learned Tribunal on actual income would be done. (Para 22 and 24) Appeal allowed. (E-1)

Title: Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Abdul Moin

English hearing

SAPL/361/2018 Judgment/Order Date: 21-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 955  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229-B - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed - Fraud, Cheating, and Impersonation - Prima Facie Title of Recorded Tenure Holder - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Interference in Second Appeal. Held: The appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013 by the Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur, and the appellate court's confirmation on 29.09.2018, which cancelled a sale deed dated 20.04.1987 on grounds of fraud, cheating, and impersonation. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, given that the plaintiff's predecessor-in- interest was not recorded as the tenure holder, or if the suit was maintainable only in the revenue court under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Court held that a civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit for cancellation of a sale deed when the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest was the recorded tenure holder with prima facie title, and the suit alleges fraud, as per *Shri Ram v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge, (2001) 3 SCC 24*. The plaintiff's husband, Ram Dev, was the recorded tenure holder, and after his death, the plaintiff, as his legal heir, had prima facie title. The sale deed was not supported by evidence of execution or payment of consideration, and the defendant/respondent no.2, a beneficiary, supported the plaintiff's claim of fraud. Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below, based on evidence, were not perverse and thus not liable to interference under Section 100 CPC. The substantial question of law did not arise, as the civil court was competent to entertain the suit. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. Second Appeal dismissed. Observation: The Court noted that the defendant/respondent no.2, a beneficiary of the sale deed, supported the plaintiff's claim of fraud, denying execution and payment of consideration. The appellant's claim of execution and possession was not substantiated by evidence, and the absence of any provision for the plaintiff's livelihood by her husband, Ram Dev, further supported the inference of fraud. The concurrent findings of the courts below, based on oral and documentary evidence, were not perverse, and the civil court was competent to entertain the suit given the plaintiff's prima facie title as the legal heir of the recorded tenure holder.

Title: Ram Baran Vs. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar

English hearing

FAPLD/207 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 21-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 952  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Divorce by Mutual Consent - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 5 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Condonation of Delay - Separation Period - Requirement of One Year Separation - Error in Reckoning Separation Date - Mutual Consent Agreement During Separation - No Collusion. Held: The appellant-wife and respondent-husband jointly petitioned the Family Court for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after living separately since 12.01.2022. The Family Court dismissed the petition on 30.11.2024, erroneously reckoning the separation date from 02.08.2023, the date of their agreement to seek mutual divorce. The Court condoned a 54-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause, and admitted the appeal. On ascertaining that the parties had lived separately for over one year before filing the petition and had mutually agreed to divorce without collusion, the Court held that the Family Court erred in presuming togetherness based on the agreement date. The requirement under Section 13-B(1) is separation of one year or more before presenting the petition, and an agreement for mutual divorce during separation does not imply cohabitation, as clarified in *Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, (1991) 2 SCC 25*. The absence of collusion and the parties' firm resolve to separate were affirmed, consistent with *Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746*, which emphasizes flexibility in the six- month waiting period under Section 13-B(2) when reconciliation is improbable. The marriage solemnized on 06.12.2004 was declared dissolved by mutual consent, and a decree was ordered to be drawn expeditiously. Appeal allowed; marriage dissolved by mutual consent. Observation: The Court, upon personal enquiry with the parties present, confirmed their firm resolve to separate, absence of claims against each other, and that their children would remain with the appellant. The joint petition and affidavits clearly established no physical relation since 2013 and separate living since 12.01.2022, satisfying the conditions for mutual consent divorce under Section 13-B

Title: Smt. Minakshi Gupta Vs. Kailash Chandra

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Arindam Sinha,Avnish Saxena

English hearing

CRLP/28135 /2018 Judgment/Order Date: 18-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 940  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 145, 145(1), 146 & 146(1) - Writ Petition - challenging the impugned orders u/s 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. - alleging that petitioner held long-standing ancestral possession and that parallel civil suits on title and injunction were already pending - as such making the criminal proceedings unwarranted - Respondent no.4 argued that the proceedings were necessary due to apprehension of breach of peace - though both his own application and police reports acknowledged the petitioners' possession - Despite this, the Magistrate issued attachment orders without establishing emergent need - Revision - the Revisional Court failed to evaluate maintainability or the civil litigation context - writ petition - Court finds that, learned Magistrate failed to record any findings as to when civil suits have been filed by both the parties, as to whether the application u/s 145 CrPC was maintainable or not and even if it was maintainable, whether any order could have been passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not -relying on Supreme Court precedents, court held that - unless the issue of title is determined, the long and admitted possession of the petitioners cannot be settled in the proceedings u/s 145 CrPC and in view of the ongoing civil suits, there was no need of passing order of attachment - consequently, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside - accordingly, writ petition is allowed. (Para - 19, 20, 24, 25) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Mohd. Kasim Usmani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar

English hearing

CRLP/15379/2019 Judgment/Order Date: 16-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 915  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law- The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 133- That a wall has been constructed on a public land by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, which is being used as a way to come on the main way--- Petitioner admitted in his evidence/cross- examination that the wall was constructed by predecessor in-interest of the petitioners---The only plea has been taken that since the finding has been recorded that in case adjacent to the same if construction is made in future, the public way may be obstructed, whereas, the order could not have been passed merely on the basis of presumption of happening in the future, but it cannot be disputed that the wall has been constructed on a public land and as per Section 133 Cr.P.C., the unlawful obstruction or nuisance over any public place or over any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public is required to be removed--- Any person cannot unlawfully obstruct or create nuisance on a public place or over any way and if it has been done or construction is raised, the same is liable to be removed under Section 133 Cr.P.C---Merely because it may not have completely created obstruction to the public, it cannot be said that the person, who has created such an obstruction or nuisance, can be allowed to continue with the same. Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 17) (E-15)

Title: Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajnish Kumar

English hearing

CRLP/2611 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 10-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 895  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Section 226 & 243-R(b) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302 & 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections - 82, 173, 173(2), 173(8), 311, 319 & 482 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Sections 6, 6(2) & 6(5) - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932- Section 7 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - SectionS 10(a)(i) & 15(1) - writ petition - seeks multiple reliefs - primarily challenging the impugned U.P. Government's order transferring the investigation of Case from local police to the CBCID without considering the petitioner's demand for invoking the UAPA and further prayed to for transferring the case to a central agency like the NIA or CBI - FIR - offense of murder and rioting - allegations are that petitioner's brother was murdered - the competent authority passed an order whereby investigation of the case was transferred from the Local police to CBCID - challenged in writ petition - disposed of - with direction to the St. Govt. UP to taken fresh decision in accordance with law - matter reached finality - in compliance, UP Government passed impugned order - now challenged by the petitioner again in the current proceedings - court while discussing the various issue of like scope of Article 226, transfer of Investigation, further Investigation Permissibility, Applicability of UAPA, Criminal Procedure Powers, finds that, - such transfers should only occur in rare, exceptional cases where the St. investigation lacks credibility or public confidence - The Court emphasized the adequacy of existing legal remedies under the Cr.P.C., including powers under Sections 311 and 319, allowing trial courts to summon or recall witnesses and proceed against uncharged individuals if strong evidence emerges - Finding no compelling grounds justifying interference or transfer at this stage, and to avoid prejudicing the ongoing trial, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition - held that, (i) the power of transferring an investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind - and (ii) available procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C. (Sections 311 & 319) were adequate - and therefore declined to intervene in the matter - hence, the writ petition is dismissed to avoid prejudicing the ongoing trial - the trial court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. (Para - 35, 38, 39, 40, 41) Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

Title: Usman Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,Prashant Kumar

English hearing

CRLR/1089 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 23-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 892  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 91 - Application for production of document by accused at the stage prior to defence - Rejection justified - Order refusing sanction for prosecution of co-accused neither relevant nor necessary at pre-charge stage - Not a document falling under Section 91 Cr.P.C. when invoked by accused at framing of charge - Section does not confer an enforceable right on the accused to summon documents for defence before charge is framed - Verification of affidavit filed with the application found incomplete and casual - Judicial disapproval expressed. Held, in light of St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, the right of the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. ordinarily arises only at the stage of defence. A document refusing sanction for prosecution of a co-accused is not one which can be compelled for production under Section 91 at the pre-charge stage. The revision was devoid of merit and was rightly rejected.

Title: Dr. Gomati Dwivedy Vs. C.B.I./A.C.B. Branch, Lko.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi

English hearing

CRLA/10426 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 01-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 888  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Cognizance and Summoning - The Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(5 ka) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 342, 504, 506 & 323 - Stage of Cognizance - Prima facie case and strong suspicion sufficient for summoning - Magistrate not required to assess sufficiency of evidence for conviction at cognizance stage - "Sufficient ground" means satisfaction of prima facie case, not proof of guilt - Taking cognizance lies exclusively with the Magistrate, who must assess sufficient ground to proceed, not to convict; adequacy of evidence for conviction is for trial - no detailed reasons are required at the stage of issuing process. (Para - 8,9,11,14,15) Altercation took place between appellant and informant at a coaching centre - appellant along with associates allegedly hurled caste-related abuses - assaulted and robbed informant in public view - initial challan under Section 151 CrPC despite CCTV footage - later, FIR registered and charge sheet filed under IPC and SC/ST Act - cognizance taken and summons issued. (Para -1,3,13 ) HELD: - Material on record showed a prima facie case against the appellant to proceed to trial. Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance and issuing summons. No illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. Appeal devoid of merit. (Para -13,17) Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Kaushal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Nalin Kumar Srivastava

English hearing

CRLA/4854 /2016 Judgment/Order Date: 11-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 874  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Indiscriminate firing by armed accused causing death and injuries - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 307 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Any lawful assembly may become unlawful at any point of time - Common object may be formed at any stage and liability arises even without overt act if member shares object - Moment indiscriminate firing began in response to objection, assembly became unlawful and common object was formed.(Para -29 to 33,36) Accused persons consuming liquor and abusing each other were objected to by the informant - Accused retaliated with firearms causing death of two and injuries to five including informant - FIR lodged after delay of six and a half hours due to urgent medical needs - Prosecution justified delay based on circumstances - Trial Court convicted all accused - Appeals filed against conviction. (Para -27 ) HELD: -The moment the accused persons had started the indiscriminate firing at the injured persons they had formed a common object and the assembly of the accused persons became an unlawful assembly. Prosecution succeeded in proving the case. No interference was required in the trial court's judgment., (Para -36,37) Criminal appeal's dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Rakesh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Anish Kumar Gupta

English hearing

CRLA/1226 /1983 Judgment/Order Date: 10-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 862  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Appeal - Absconding Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 302 - Appeal can be decided on merits where appellant is absconding and presumed dead, and record is sufficient - If the case is decided on merits in the absence of the Appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation - Accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency.(Para - 4,42) (B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Not necessary to be in Q&A form if certified fit by medical officer - Statement must be shown to be voluntary and credible - a truthful and reliable dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction even though it is not corroborated - Merely because dying declaration was not in question answer form, the sanctity attached to a dying declaration as it comes from the mouth of a dying person cannot be brushed aside and its reliability cannot be doubted. (Para -35,36,37,43) Appellant Ashraf and co-accused Santosh Kumar assaulted Nanak Chand - due to prior litigation - victim gave dying declaration naming assailants and died - FIR under S. 307 IPC later altered to S. 302 IPC - eye-witnesses turned hostile - trial court convicted both under Section 302 IPC - Santosh died during appeal - Ashraf absconded since 1990 - appeal heard ex parte with State counsel. (Para - 8,14 to 23) HELD:- Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed on basis of reliable dying declaration and medical/documentary evidence. Hostile witnesses and defective investigation held immaterial .Court permitted to decide appeal on merits in absence of absconding appellant. (Para - 42,46,47) Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Ashraf Vs. State

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

CRLA/442 /2013 Judgment/Order Date: 07-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 845  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - The Evidence Act,1872 - Section 106-Conviction under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment by the Trial Court---Burden to show as to what happened after the accused persons taken the deceased to their house and subsequently the dead bodies were recovered from the house of the appellants would shift on the accused as these facts were only within the knowledge of accused and they failed to discharge the burden u/s 106 of the Evidence Act---There was no question from the side of the defence as to whether it is a case of strangulation or hanging. In the post-mortem report, both hyoid bone were fractured and the defence has admitted that both the deceased were murdered---It is established law that a man can tell a lie but circumstances cannot. Even the witnesses who later on turned hostile have admitted that both the deceased person were killed. Though they have deposed that some unknown persons had killed the deceased but they have not attributed any motive on those unknown persons for killing the deceased. The accused had sufficient motive as they felt dishonoured because of the love affair of their daughter/sister with deceased- Sarafat and, therefore, they killed both of them. That once the examination-in-chief as well as cross examination of the witnesses are already recorded and their evidence is complete, thereafter, if charges are altered/amended/added, the Trial Court should restrain itself from permitting the de novo trial so as to enable the said witnesses to discard their earlier depositions. In such circumstances, the Trial Court should permit the witnesses to depose only with respect to the altered/ amended/ added charges---The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are confirmed. (Para 43, 54, 60 to 64) Appeals dismissed. (E-15)

Title: Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddharth,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

CRLA/345/1984 Judgment/Order Date: 28-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 827  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Murder - Direct evidence - Appeal from conviction - Intentional homicide using tractor - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 302/34 - Crushed victim under tractor wheels - Evidence of injured and independent eyewitness corroborated by medical and expert evidence - Common intention - Related Witness - Medical Corroboration - Motive established- Ocular vs. Medical evidence - Direct and cogent ocular and medical evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Injured witness testimony has higher evidentiary value - related witness not inherently unreliable - Conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained where the prosecution case is supported by reliable injured eyewitness testimony, promptly lodged FIR, and medical and site inspection evidence. (Para - 4,12,31,35,43-47) Litigation regarding passage (rasta) was ongoing between complainant and accused - confrontation occurred where Mangat (deceased) was assaulted - complainant was also injured - While returning from police station after lodging report, accused and Yashpal followed on a tractor - Accused drove the tractor over deceased on exhortation of Yashpal - resulting in his death - FIR lodged promptly and medical/post-mortem evidence corroborated ocular version.(Para - 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 31) HELD: - Appellant was found guilty of intentionally driving tractor over deceased after prior enmity and assault. Ocular evidence of injured and independent witnesses corroborated by post-mortem and expert opinion. Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld. Accused directed to surrender and serve out sentence. (Para - 44-48) Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

CRLA/275 /1986 Judgment/Order Date: 09-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 811  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Murder - Appeal against conviction - Extra-Judicial Confession - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8 & 27 - The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 & 313 - Extra-judicial confession voluntarily made to village Chowkidar and supported by recovery of weapon with human blood - Evidence of hostile witnesses admissible to the extent found credible - Hostile witnesses' partial reliability upheld - Adverse inference drawn from refusal to give specimen signature - Hostile witness - Extra-judicial confession - Adverse inference - Conviction can be sustained on extra- judicial confession corroborated by recovery and conduct of accused. (Para -4, 6, 7, 20, 43-48,54,55,56,59-61) Accused admitted killing his wife over suspicion of character - handed over weapon to police - confession corroborated by forensic evidence - prompt FIR lodged by Chowkidar (P.W.-1) - who later turned hostile. (Para - 4-7, 20, 47, 60) HELD: -Accused's extra-judicial confession, recovery of blood-stained weapon and refusal to provide specimen signature corroborated guilt. Hostile witnesses' usable testimony relied upon. Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld. (Para -59-61) Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Title: Bandu Ram Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vivek Kumar Birla,Praveen Kumar Giri

English hearing

BAIL/40524 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 03-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 795  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal law- Bail - Applicant arrested U/S 137(2), 61(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO ActMinor girl enticed - POCSO Act - Consent - Contradictory St.ments of victim - FIR delayed - Victim declared herself adult in 180 B.N.S.S. St.ment - Ossification test not conducted - No injury or medical corroboration - Victim accompanied applicant voluntarily to another St. - Promise of marriage - Bail granted - Red tape and systemic failure in age determination process deprecated - Directions issued to health and police authorities. (Paras 5,15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 32) HELD: In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh & anr. Vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & ors. AIR 1980 SC 785 this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. (Para 15) The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. (Para 16) It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para 20) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Amarjeet Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Krishan Pahal

English hearing

BAIL/9861/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 09-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 750  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 313 & 377 - Bail - Allegation of rape on false promise of marriage - Consent - Adult prosecutrix - Delay of five months in FIR - Relationship admitted to be consensual - Admitted deletion of charges under Sections 313 & 377 I.P.C. - Disputed marital status - Prima facie no intention to deceive from inception - Courts not to criminalise failed relationships - Law does not enforce all aspects of morality - Bail granted. (Paras 5, 30 to 42) HELD: This case is reflective of a broader societal shift, where the sanctity and solemnity once associated with intimate relationships have seen a marked decline. The prevalence of transient and uncommitted relationships, often formed and dissolved at will, raises critical questions about individual responsibility and the misuse of legal provisions, especially when such relationships turn sour. It is increasingly observed that personal fallouts and emotional discord are being given a criminal colour, through the invocation of penal laws, particularly in the aftermath of failed intimate relationships. (Para 31) The instant FIR, instituted after the relationship between the applicant and the victim fell apart, appears to be a product of such emotional aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing. The timing and circumstances surrounding the filing of the complaint suggest a retaliatory motive rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. (Para 32) Not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention. It also reflects a foundational principle in jurisprudence - the law does not enforce all aspects of morality. (Para 33) The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. (Para 37) It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA. (Para 41) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Krishan Pahal

English hearing

BAIL/8027 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 09-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 744  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 439- Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302/34-The applicant sought bail regarding the murder of the deceased-The prosecution primarily relied on the custodial confessional statement of a co-accused and a disputed dying declaration inferred from a witness statement under section 161 CrPC- The only material directly linking the applicant was the co-accused's confession, which is not sufficient alone for conviction-Santosh Yadav's statement, claimed to be a dying declaration , lacked crucial details such as timing and direct threat from the applicant-The court found that the statement did not specifically implicate the applicant, nor was it proximate in time or content to the deceased's death, thus affecting its evidentiary weight-The court also held that subsequent FIR alleging witness threats did not involve the applicant directly-Questions of admissibility and evidentiary value should be examined during the trial-Bail could be granted subject to conditions.(Para 1 to 26) The application is allowed. (E-6)

Title: Rajeev Yadav @ Rinku Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi

English hearing

ABAIL/118 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 01-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 738  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 438-BNSS,2023- Section 482-U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act,1986- Maintainability-The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Gangster act-The State opposed the application , citing the U.P. Amendment to the CrPC,1973 which barred anticipatory bail in Gangster Act cases-the application was not maintainable since the chargsheet and bailable warrants were issued before the BNSS 2023 came into effect on 1st july 2024-The Court rejected the objection, holding that the second bailable warrant issued on 2nd july 2024(post enforcement of BNSS 2023) constituted a fresh cause of action and anticipatory bail would be governed by section 482 BNSS 2023 which permits such applications-Relying on the Deepu Vs. St. of UP and Eera Vs. St., the court emphasized that anticipatory bail is a beneficial provision linked to Article 21 and must be interpreted broadly-Finding only one previous case against the applicants, in which bail was earlier granted, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to condition-Thus, Anticipatory bail application is maintainable under BNSS 2023.(Para 1 to 24) The application is allowed. (E-6)

Title: Tatheer Jafri & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manish Mathur

English hearing

A482/8370 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 21-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 733  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - The Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 44 (1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 323 & 325 - Transfer of case - Validity - ED filed Complaint before Sessions Judge, based on FIR lodged by ATS for offences - Applicant is accused in said FIRs but not named in ED complaint - Case was committed to Sessions Court on 03.02.2016, later transferred to Special PMLA Court upon its creation - Applicant's plea to transfer trial from Special PMLA Court to Magistrate rejected - Even if offence exceeds Magistrate's sentencing powers, Magistrate must conduct trial, record evidence and if higher sentence is warranted, refer case to Chief Judicial Magistrate for committal to Sessions Court - Thus, trial by Magistrate does not bar maximum punishment under law - Applicant's claim that trial by Magistrate limits punishment to seven years is misconceived and transfer of trial to Special Court does not cause prejudice - Impugned order lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 17) Application dismissed. (E-13)

Title: Danish Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Subhash Vidyarthi

English hearing

A482/4859/2013 Judgment/Order Date: 10-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 726  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 482-Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 325,506-challenge to- summoning order-The case stemmed from allegations by the complainant that the applicant no. 2, Doctor had conducted a negligent surgery, leading to cancer and later both applicants allegedly attacked her with a motorcycle during her protest- However, the FIR was lodged after a delay of nearly a month, and subsequent departmental inquiry had exonerated the doctor, holding a private hospital responsible-The Court noted the absence of credible eyewitnesses, the lack of corroborating medical evidence, and the verified presence of the applicants elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident-The Court found that the FIR was filed with malafide intent after the complainant failed in earlier attempts to implicate the applicants through departmental channels-Applying principles from State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Prashant Bharti Vs. St. of NCT of Delhi, the court held that the proceedings were malicious and constituted an abuse of the legal process.(Para 1 to 30) The application is allowed. (E-6)

Title: Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shree Prakash Singh

English hearing

A482/3099 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 05-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 718  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 & 143 - Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution - Reference to Larger Bench on maintainability of revision vs. appeal - The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Sections 203, 204 , 256(1), 378(4) & 397 - Whether dismissal of complaint before issuance of summons amounts to acquittal - Where no summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is passed, dismissal of complaint is under Section 203 Cr.P.C., and not an acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. - Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. not applicable where complaint dismissed prior to summoning stage under Section 203 Cr.P.C. - appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. does not lie where complaint dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. - only remedy is revision - complaint dismissed before summons, pre-cognizance stage - Reference not answered as foundational facts did not attract the legal issue - Complaint dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. before summoning does not amount to acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. - remedy lies in revision, not appeal. (Para - 1,2,5,10,11,13) Complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act dismissed for insufficient material before summoning - revisional court set aside order and remanded the matter - applicant challenged maintainability of revision, relying on coordinate Bench decision in Vinay Kumar case. (Para - 4 to 8) HELD: - As the order dated 13.03.2019 is prior to issuance of summons and thus is an order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., stage of Section 256 Cr.P.C. has yet not arisen in the present matter. The question whether an order dismissing a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for want of prosecution will amount to acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and whether the same can be challenged in appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. or is an order revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not arise in the present case. (Para -11) Reference needs no deliberation, returned to the appropriate Bench, and the matter directed to be listed before it. (E-7)

Title: Abhishek Mishra @ Pintu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajiv Gupta,Samit Gopal

English hearing

A482/551/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 04-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 712  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 135 & 149 - Against summon order - Quashing of - Applicant challenged proceedings which is primarily based on procedural illegality of implicating him in capacity of 'Manager' and instituting FIR against Institution under Electricity Act, 2003 - Such prosecution is not maintainable, as applicable provision is Section 149 of Act, which governs offences committed by group of person or association of individual, such as Committee of Management that runs educational institution, also covers offences under Sections 135, 136, and 138 - Hence, FIRs against such institution must proceed under Section 149 alone - Cognizance order dated 02.05.2024, summoning applicant as Manager of institution, is unsustainable as it ignores mandatory application of Section 149, and therefore quashed. (Para 6, 11, 14) Application allowed. (E-13)

Title: Devendra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Saurabh Srivastava

English hearing

A227/1281 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 28-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 709  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 21 - Rule 97, 98 & 101- Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is available only to a stranger, who claims to be in possession of the properties in his rights which are independent and is a third person claiming right, title or interest in the property to seek restoration of the decretal property in contradiction to the powers under Order 21 Rule 35 which prescribes for removal of any person who is bound by the decree--- In the present case that the respondent tenant, having failed to establish any of his defenses taken in reply to the SCC Suit, has tried one after the other tricks to avoid execution--- Proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC not maintainable and were nothing but an abuse of the process of law--- Executing Court has erred in directing for framing of issues---Impugned order quashed. Petition allowed. (Para 7 & 8) (E-15)

Title: Hari Shankar Kushwaha Vs. A.D.J. E.C. Act. Lko. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Pankaj Bhatia

English hearing

WRIC/1002939 /2001 Judgment/Order Date: 22-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 707  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition - challenging the cancellation of allotment of land in year 2001 - order of allotment was passed in year 1986 - for construction of a residential house, by village LMC and further duly approved by SDM - thereafter, possession was delivered to the petitioner - petitioner spending Rs. 2,50,000/- over the construction of house - cancellation of allotment proceeding initiated - allotment was cancelled - writ petition - plea taken that the impugned order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing - writ petition - at admission stage, court stayed the impugned order with direction to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law by affording due opportunity to the petitioner - court finds that, in pursuance to the interim order, the respondents did not initiate any such proceeding of passing fresh order - therefore, impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside - held, impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and is violative of principle of natural justice - Accordingly, the writ petition allowed - impugned order set-aside by giving liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. (Para no. 7, 9, 10, 11) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Vinay Kumar Vs. Collector/ D.M., Balrampur. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Irshad Ali

English hearing

WRIC/34248/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 18-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 693  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 19, 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21, 226 & 301- Writ Petition - challenging the restricting clause of the impugned E-tender - Petitioner, a biomass pellet supplier, was restricted from participating in an E-Tender issued by Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. - tender was for the supply of Agro-based non-torrefied biomass pellets - - Judicial Review - court finds that, tender documents contained a restrictive clause 3(i) as a pre-qualifying condition, which mandated that only existing manufacturers in the NCR region or those are located within 100 km of HTP Station, Aligarh - Plea taken that, Clause 3(i) is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 301 of the Constitution of India - court observed that, the restriction was aimed at reducing NCR air pollution caused by stubble burning - and it is aligns with government policies, including the Environment Rules, 2023, and advisories from the Ministry of Power - court held that, - (i) Judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest - (ii) courts being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere only in cases when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala-fide and biasness and not otherwise, - (iii) Restrictive condition in the tender cannot be considered to be arbitrary and discriminatory because, it is the wisdom of the employer to determine conditions/clauses which are suited for the work to be performed in the public interest - (iv) no evidence of mala fide intent or targeted exclusion was found - accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. (Para no. 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32) Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

Title: M/S Rajan Construction Comp Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Vipin Chandra Dixit

English hearing

WRIC/31742/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 16-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 675  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C, - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhan and Up-Pradhans) Rules, 1994 - Rule 33, 82, 86, 86(1), 86(2), 86(2)(b), 105, 105(2)- Writ Petition - challenging the election of the Gram Pradhan - the petitioner initially secured 664 votes while respondent no. 4 received 658 - however, respondent no. 4 filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, prompting a recount - being aggrieved, petitioner filed writ petition - High Court by earlier order remanded the matter before the prescribed authority to decide the election petition a fresh - led to a Supreme Court - Supreme Court directed recount in present of a Court Commissioner - recounting revealing 659 votes for respondent no. 4 and 657 for the petitioner, with 114 ballots declared invalid - the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to quickly review only disputed ballots and decide the matter without delay - both contesting parties were allowed to inspect and filed their objections regarding invalid votes - the Court relying on the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius held that, any deviation from the prescribed method, such as using ink dots or thumb impressions, renders the ballot invalid and threatens the integrity of the election process - therefore, court upheld the rejection of several disputed ballot papers in the Gram Pradhan election, citing violations of the mandatory voting procedure under Rules 86 and 105 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1994 - after reviewing the objections to 40 out of the 114 invalid votes, the Court found 36 ballots to be invalid, while 2 were valid in favour of petitioner and 2 in favour of respondent no. 4 - thus, the revised tally brought petitioner's total to 659 votes and respondent no. 4's total to 661 votes - thereby declaring respondent no. 4 as the winning candidate - directions issued to respondent authorities to take consequential steps for entering of respondent no. 4 as Gram Pradhan within one month - accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. (Para no. 30, 37, 50, 51). Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-11)

Title: Smt. Kehkashan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vikram D Chauhan

English hearing

WRIC/31506/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 16-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 670  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition - seeking a writ of mandamus - commanding the medical college (respondent no. 2) to release the petitioner's original documents - petitioner submitted a bank guarantee in compliance with a prior court order - respondent no. 2 released the original documents - however, court finds that - Rs. 5,00,000/- as security taken by the medical college under a bond was not enforceable and also same was not in consonance with the public policy - held, relying on precedents from the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts, the Court directed to the respondent no. 2 to refund the security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 4% per anum from the date of payment, including the bank guarantee, within four weeks - direction issued accordingly - writ petition is disposed of. Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-11)

Title: Dr. Saba Sarif Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava

English hearing

WRIC/28104/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 03-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 661  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226, - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198, 198(4), 198(5), 198(6) & 333 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 11 & 19:- Writ Petition - Direction sought for release of compensation pursuant to land acquisition - Agricultural land originally allotted to petitioners on lease (Patta) in 2003 - Mutation duly recorded in revenue records - complaint received in 2009, alleging irregularities in the allotment of Patta - proceeding initiated u/s 198(4) of Act, 1950 - lease cancelled by the Collector in 2015 - Revision, allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in 2016 - Cancellation set aside - Proceedings attained finality - subsequently, the land was acquired by the government - compensation was awarded in 2023 - Authorities denied to paid compensation, on the ground that, a fresh proceedings were initiated by the SDM to cancel the leases - whether the order of SDM after declaration of Award, petitioners can be denied for compensation for the acquired land - court finds that, cancellation proceedings were reopened on the basis of a report received in 2023, - Notices were issued in 2024, nearly after lapse of 21 years, - Proceedings initiated u/s 198(4) of the Act, 1950 held to be ex facie barred by limitation - such action amounts to legal overreach - Further, the U.P. Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 stands repealed by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and as per Section 128 of the Code, limitation for cancellation of allotment or lease is 5 years - Thus, the proceedings were beyond the prescribed period and without jurisdiction - held - the fresh proceeding for cancellation of allotments was beyond the limitation and lack of jurisdiction therefore same is quashed - writ petition, allowed with directions, to pay the compensation to the petitioners in terms of Award, within four weeks, with a cost of Rs. 25000/- each Patta, direction issued accordingly. (Para - 11, 18, 21, 23, 24) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manoj Kumar Gupta,Anish Kumar Gupta

English hearing

WRIC/14904 /2016 Judgment/Order Date: 02-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 637  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 6(1), 8(3), 8(4), 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) & 10(6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Sections 3 & 4 - Writ of Mandamus - Surplus Land - De Facto Possession - Abatement of Proceedings - Notice Requirement - Jurisdiction of Writ Court - Mixed Question of Law and Fact - Delay in Filing Writ Petition. Held: The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them from 67,138.12 square meters of land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in village Lawayan, District Allahabad. Ceiling proceedings against Bholanath, the original tenure holder, resulted in an ex-parte order dated 24.05.1983 under Section 8(4), followed by notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3), and a notice under Section 10(5) dated 27.05.1996. No voluntary surrender or forceful dispossession under Section 10(6) occurred, and Bholanath and his heirs remained in physical possession until his death in 2005 and thereafter. The St. failed to provide evidence of de facto possession, such as a memorandum of possession or panchnama, before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Relying on *St. of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280*, and *M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447*, the Court held that mere vesting under Section 10(3) does not confer de facto possession, and proceedings abate under Section 4 of the Repeal Act if possession was not taken. The issue of possession, a mixed question of law and fact, was within the writ court's jurisdiction under Article 226, despite a 20-year delay, as the St.'s threat of dispossession in 2015 provided a fresh cause of action. The writ was allowed, and the St. was directed to update revenue records in favor of the petitioners within eight weeks. A correction application adding counsel's name was also allowed. Writ petition allowed; revenue records to be updated in favor of petitioners. Observation: The Court observed conflicting revenue records, with petitioners' names in Khasra for 1422 Fasli (2012) and St.'s name in Khatauni for 1414- 1419 Fasli (2004-2009) and 1426-1431 Fasli (2016-2021). The St.'s claim of possession via a 1996 Government Order transferring the land to Prayagraj Development Authority lacked evidence of actual possession or compensation payment. The 20-year delay was excused due to the 2015 dispossession threat, which triggered the cause of action. Accepting the St.'s claims without scrutiny risked injustice, justifying adjudication under Article 226.

Title: Ramji & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Vipin Chandra Dixit

English hearing

WRIC/6408 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 08-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 635  

HEADNOTE hearing

Live in relationship-Father and mother of the child are of different religion-living together since 2018- parents of the child are apprehensive of certain threats from the private respondents who are the erstwhile in-laws of the biological mother- after the death of the erstwhile husband- biological mother started living with the biological father- parents are major-are entitled to live together-even if they have not undergone marriage-the Superintendent of Police, is directed to ensure that the first information report should be registered if the parents of the child approach the police station. W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Title: Baby Aaliya (Minor) & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf,Vipin Chandra Dixit

English hearing