NA528/44720 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 21-04-2025 (2025) 4 ILRA 800  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Criminal Law - Cognizance - Magistrate's Power to Add or subtract any section - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 190(1)(b), 204, 216, 218 & 228 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 210 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376/511, 406, 354, 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3/4, Magistrate, while taking cognizance u/s 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., can take cognizance of all offences constituted by the facts reported by the police which also include the offences which are not mentioned in the charge-sheet - Not bound by Investigating Officer's conclusion - may take independent decision regarding cognizance of an offence on the basis of material available with the police report - Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal held Magistrate can issue process on basis of police report though accused not named - Magistrate has discretion under S.190(1)(b) CrPC/210 BNSS to take cognizance beyond IO's conclusions.(Para - 10,14,18,19,22,23) Applicant lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - On submission of charge-sheet - she filed a protest petition seeking cognizance under Sections 376/511 and 406 IPC based on her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate rejected her plea citing lack of prima facie material - Present application under Section 528 BNSS was filed challenging that order.(Para - 2,3,4,24) HELD: - Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence based on the police report's material, regardless of the Investigating Officer's opinion. This power includes (i) Summoning unnamed accused persons. (ii) Taking cognizance of offences under different sections than those mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iii) Dropping sections if there's insufficient material in the report. Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate by which it refused to take cognizance of the offence u/s 376, 511 and 406 I.P.C. .(Para - 22,25) Application U/S 528 BNSS dismissed. (E- 7)

Title: Nisha Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

NABAIL/398/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 14  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 80 & 85 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section ¾ - Sessions Court entertained anticipatory bail applications of three co-accused but declined interim protection, thereby continuing their apprehension of arrest - Reasonable likelihood that applicant would be denied interim relief if he would approach Sessions Court - These circumstances constitute exceptional situation justifying applicant, a young B.Tech. student, in directly approaching High Court for anticipatory bail - Having considered facts and circumstances, including FIR implicates applicant's mother (co-accused) in strangulation, while post-mortem report indicates death by asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging with only 6 cm-interrupted ligature mark and no other injuries, no specific allegation made against applicant, he is 21-year-old engineering student, he has undertaken to cooperate in investigation and trial, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 8, 16) Application allowed. (E-13)

Title: Prashant Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

NA528/2582 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 20-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 286  

HEADNOTE hearing

Private opposite party no. 2 is wife of the applicant- -various matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties -as per medical report- five injuries are found on the body of the injured person/first informant-Inherent power must be utilised with the sole purpose of preventing the abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise serve the ends of justice- proper scrutiny of facts and circumstances of the case concerned is absolutely imperative. Application dismissed. (E-9)

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

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

English hearing

NA528/30850 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 321  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 7, 8, 9, 138, 141 & 142 - Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 2, 2(a), 4, 11, 18, 19 & 22 - The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 14 - Application - challenging summoning the summoning orders and dismissal of criminal revision ?- under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 - dishonour of four cheques, due to insufficient funds - Complaint Case - summon orders - Criminal Revision - dismissed - plea taken that the complaint was filed by a partner without authorization from the firm, which was the actual payee, - and the absence of firm authorization violates Sections 19 and 22 of the Indian Partnership Act - Additionally, they argue that proceedings are barred under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - due to an NCLT order placing firm under moratorium - They also claim non-compliance with Section 141 of the NI Act - court finds that, the revisional court failed to adequately consider substantive legal objections, rendering its order legally unsustainable - however, the judgment ultimately affirms the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act - court held that, (i) a partner, acting as an agent of the firm, possesses implied authority to initiate proceedings when the cheque is issued in the firm's name - (ii) applicants being Directors of the body corporate are not entitled to any protection u/s 14 of the IBC and they have no right to forestall the proceedings u/s 138 NI Act, - relies on authoritative rulings including P. Mohanraj, Ajay Kumar Goenka, and Rakesh Bhanot, court reiterates that disputed facts and presumptions under Section 139 must be adjudicated at trial - cautions against premature quashing under Section 482 CrPC - accordingly, no jurisdictional error was committed by the trial court - consequently, both applications are dismissed. (Para - 9, 10, 11) Application Dismissed. (E-11)

Title: Mohnish Jain & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vikas Budhwar

English hearing

NA528/5944 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 02-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 626  

HEADNOTE hearing

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 173 (4)-Application U/S 173(4) BNSS moved- impugned order-directed to proceed with the application as a complaint case-Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed- on a prima facie reading of the complaint -clearly indicate the need for police investigation-the discretion granted in Section 156(3) can only be read as it being the Magistrate's duty to order the police to investigate-if investigation in the matter is not required then in that eventuality, the Magistrate/Court of competent of jurisdiction can treat the application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a 'complaint case'-no interference in impugned order. Application dismissed. (E-9)

Title: Smt. Raveena Meena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manju Rani Chauhan

English hearing

NA528/11862 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 06-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 633  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 161 & 164 -St.ment of opposite party no.2 recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.- specific allegation of cruelty and also the harassment against the husband for demand of dowry-as well as committing unnatural carnal sex upon his wife against her wishes-to attract the offence u/s 498A IP- specific demand of dowry is not necessary-cruelty committed by the husband is itself sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section-498A IPC-from the perusal of the St.ments of Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., offence mentioned in charge sheet are made out-no ground for quashing. Application rejected. (E-9)

Title: Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

NA528/14125 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 642  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 11 - there is hardly any sanction of prosecution in pursuance to section 11 of Essential Commodities Act available-entire proceedings is conducted by way of ignoring the strict provisions- specifically defined under section 11 of the Act-not permissible- unjustified- Proceedings quashed. Application allowed. (E-9)

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

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

English hearing

WTAX/30 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 03-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 183  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Taxation Law- The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 - The Income Tax Act, 1961-Sections 131(1A) & 132---Writ petition challenging warrant of authorization and the validity of search proceedings conducted at the premise of the petitioners as well as notice issued U/S 131(1A) of the Act---- In order to initiate any action section 132, first of all, there has to be information in possession of the officers referred thereunder. Secondly, such officers should have reason to believe as a consequence of such information and based thereon. Thirdly, this information and reason to believe should have a relation with any of the three clauses (a), (b) or (c) contained therein, otherwise such exercise would be bad in law. B. The information and reason to believe has to be related/ referrable to clause (b) aforesaid and should have a rational connection with the said clause (b) and if it is not then it can be a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because then it would be a case of absence of such information/ reason to believe in the context of said clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 132 and would lead to a conclusion that it is an arbitrary exercise of power, without application of mind to the provisions of law and legal requirements contained therein. C. The jurisdictional prerequisites for exercise of power under Section 132 are / were woefully absent in this case and consequently entire search operations based on such satisfaction note and warrant of authorization are illegal--- The authorised officer does not have any power to issue notices under section 131(1A) post- search, at best issuance of such notice would render the notice invalid. But issuance of notice under s. 131(1A) post-search would not in any manner render the proceedings under section 132 invalid, if they were otherwise initiated pursuant to a valid authorization issued after recording satisfaction on the basis of the material available on record. Petition allowed. (E-15)

Title: Pramod Swarup Agarwal Vs. Prin. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Lko & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajan Roy,Om Prakash Shukla

English hearing

WRIC/38609/2019 Judgment/Order Date: 10-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 170  

HEADNOTE hearing

(A) Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop - Cancellation of Licence - The Essential commodities Act,1955 - Section 3/7 & 13(2) - UP Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution Control) Order, 2016 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 43,60,66 - Cancellation of fair price shop licence cannot be ordered merely on the ground of lodging of a criminal case - Government Order dated 05.08.2019 prescribes a mandatory preliminary inquiry prior to cancellation/suspension - Failure to follow prescribed procedure vitiates order of cancellation - Licence of fair price shop cannot be cancelled only on ground of FIR registration under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act without conducting proper inquiry under Government Order dated 05.08.2019. (Para - 32, 33, 34) Licence of the petitioner's fair price shop was cancelled - ground - FIR was lodged under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act and 66 of I.T. Act - no preliminary inquiry as mandated by the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 was conducted - Statutory appeals under Clause 13(2) of Control Order, 2016 were dismissed. (Para - 3 to 24, 31, 32) HELD: - Fair price shop licence/agreement could not be cancelled on the ground of registration of F.I.R. under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. It is mandatory for the authorities to conduct a preliminary inquiry as prescribed under the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 before cancelling or suspending the licence. Since this procedure was not followed, the cancellation order is unsustainable. Authorities were directed to restore the fair price shop licences forthwith. (Para 32, 33, 34, 36) Petitions allowed. (E-7)

Title: M/s Sajid Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

WRIA/35844/2019 Judgment/Order Date: 06-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 157  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Principle of natural justice - Appointment - Post of Producer - Withdrawal of appointment - No reason was given in the impugned order - Effect - Held, the manner under which the impugned order withdrawing the offer of appointment has been issued is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it is a settled law that the requirement to record reasons is a fundamental principle of natural justice which acts as a check against arbitrary exercise of powers and ensures fairness. The opposite parties acted arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 36) B. Service Law - Appointment - Irregularity in constitution of Selection Committee - Effect - Principle of legitimate expectation - Applicability - The petitioners was selected and offered appointment - How far petitioners put to suffer due to fault of authorities in constituting the committee - Food Corporation of India's case relied upon - Held, though the petitioners have got no absolute right of appointment in these circumstances, but their expectation cannot be defeated arbitrarily or without adhering to principles of fairness and reasonableness. (Para 39 and 40) C. Service Law - Principle of Promissory Estoppel - Applicability - The petitioners, acting in a good faith manner, appeared before the Selection Committee and also succeeded in selection - Effect - Held, where any party makes promise on which the other party acts to his detriment, the promisor is estopped from going back on the promise - Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.'s case relied upon. (Para 39 and 40) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

Title: Anand Singh Aswal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

English hearing

WRIA/19578/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 13-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 148  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Cane Co- operative Service Regulations,1975- Regulations 68 and 69-The petitioner challenged disciplinary order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the cane commissioner, U.P. imposing the penalties of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, proportionate recovery of loss and censure and appellate order dated 24.09.2024 affirming the disciplinary action-The charges against the petitioner, a Cashier at a Cane Cooperative Society related to alleged negligence leading to a financial loss of Rs. 75 lakhs-A department inquiry was conducted, wherein the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty -The court found that the inquiry violated mandatory procedural safeguards under Regulations 68 and 69 of the Regulations 1975-No witnesses were examined, and no oral or documentary evidence was produced during inquiry proceedings-The inquiry officer merely relied on the charg-sheet and reply without proper evidentiary proceedings-The charge-sheet itself was defective as it failed to detail the evidence proposed for each charge-Relying on settled law and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings require production of evidence and examination of witnesses, especially where major penalties are involved. (Para 1 to 28) The writ petition was allowed and both the disciplinary and appellate orders were quashed. (E-6)

Title: RAJESH KUMAR Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

NA528/14448/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 08-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1027  

HEADNOTE hearing

Muslim Law- if a Muslim male performs his first marriage as per Mohammedan law -then second, third or fourth marriage will not be void-ingredients of Section 494 I.P.C. will not be attracted for the second marriage- except in second marriage itself declared Batil (void marriage) -as per Shariat by the Family Court u/s 7 of the Family Court Act or by any competent court.-if the first marriage is performed under Special Acts-and performs second marriage as per the Mohammedan law, after conversion to Islam then his second marriage will be void and offence u/s 494 I.P.C. (E-9)

Title: Furkan S/o Akhtar Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

NA528/10997/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1277  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Section 155 (2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 174 (2) -The mandate of Section-155 (2) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 174(2) of BNSS) - that police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence-if the police continues to investigate an FIR-which does not disclose cognizable offence- it would be against the mandate of Cr.P.C./BNSS and in such case, court can interfere-or stop the investigation in exercise of its power u/s 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.)- legal principles established in the Full Bench decision of Ramlal Yadav - may no longer be applicable due to recent developments in the law as interpreted by the Apex Court-refer this matter to a Larger Bench comprising nine judges. (E-9)

Title: Shashank Gupta @ Guddu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

WRIA/19042/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 09-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 138  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - UP Co-operative Societies' Employees Service Regulations, 1975 - Reg. 84 - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment -Withholding of increment with cumulative effect - Principle of natural justice - Applicability - Petitioner took defence against the charges imposed - Non-speaking punishment order was passed - Validity challenged - No discussion about defence was made - Effect - Held, in the absence of a discussion on the particulars of the three charges, the petitioner's defence and reasons to conclude why the charges were held proved, the underlying decision of the Committee of Management, as expressed in the impugned order passed by the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, is certainly violative of natural justice. -The order, despite being verbose on other details, maintains critical silence on what went on in the mind of the decision makers to conclude that the charges against the petitioner are proved by the requisite standard of preponderant probability. (Para 16) B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 -Classification - Vires of Reg. 84 of Regulation, 1975 not classifying the penalty of withholding of increment as major penalty - How far Court can interfere in the absence of challenge to it - Held, the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect, that would have the effect of postponing future increments, would be certainly a major penalty by all established norms, and Reg. 84, to this extent seems to arbitrarily classify penalties. But, that question cannot be gone into in the absence of a challenge laid by the petitioner to the vires of the said Regulation. (Para 12) Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

Title: Ranjeet Kumar Vs. The Registrar Corporative Societies & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

WRIA/18453/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 06-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 124  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Service Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 & 300A - Payment of Gratuity Act,1972-Section 4(6)-U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations,1975- Regulations 84 and 96- withholding of gratuity and dues-The petitioner , a retired Senior Branch Manager of the District Cooperative Bank Limited Ghaziabad challenged the withholding of Rs. 19.25000 from his post retirement benefits by the Bank-The amount was retained due to loans he had sanctioned, which later became non-performing assests(NPAs)-The court held that such recovery was illegal in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings or criminal conviction-Gratuity and post-retiral benefits are protected u/s 4(6) of the Act,1972 and Article 300A of the Constitution -Recovery from such benefits is impermissible unless services were terminated for proven misconduct- Administrative decisions or internal resolutions cannot override these legal protections-Thus, Impugned orders and resolution quashed-Bank directed to release withheld amount with interest. (Para 22 to 35)

Title: Rakesh Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

WRIA/15771/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 10-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 115  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law - U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Burden of Proof: In major penalty inquiries, the establishment must prove charges through documentary and oral evidence, including witnesses, regardless of the delinquent's participation. The inquiry officer cannot presume guilt or rely solely on documents without witness testimony. Failure to produce establishment witnesses vitiates the inquiry. St.of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772; Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570; St.of Uttaranchal Vs Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236; Satyendra Singh Vs St.of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 (Paras 2, 6, 7). B. Departmental Inquiry - Ex-Parte Proceedings - Establishment's Duty: Even if the delinquent absents, the establishment must produce evidence, including witnesses, at the scheduled inquiry to prove charges by preponderant probability. Absence does not lead to default guilt; ex-parte inquiry requires evidence presentation. St.of U.P. Vs T.P. Lal Srivastava, (1996) 10 SCC 702 (Paras 12, 13). C. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Article 351-A - Procedural Fairness: Inquiry flawed by requiring delinquent to produce and cross- examine own witnesses, misunderstanding examination-in-chief and cross-examination principles. Establishment's failure to produce witnesses invalidates findings of guilt. St.of U.P. Vs Kishori Lal, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB); Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St.of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB); St.of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (Paras 2, 10, 11). D. Judicial Review - Departmental Inquiry - Persistent Procedural Flaws: Despite prior court remand for fresh inquiry, respondents' failure to follow legal principles on evidence production warrants quashing of punishment order. Courts may consider penal costs or disciplinary action against erring authorities for repeated breaches. (Paras 15, 16). Writ Petition Allowed.

Title: Dr. Trihuti Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: J.J. Munir

English hearing

WRIA/6603/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 10-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 104  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Delay and Laches - Discretionary Relief Denied: Unexplained delay of 363 days in challenging Tribunal's order on disciplinary proceedings against a retiring employee bars extraordinary relief under Article 226. Courts must scrutinize laches to prevent injustice from stale claims, even in cases involving fundamental rights. Shiv Dass Vs U.O.I., (2007) 9 SCC 274; UP Jal Nigam Vs Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11). B. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 16 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Recovery of Loss: Recovery of Rs. 20,000 from employee at retirement for irregularities by another official (SPM) is unsustainable without direct culpability. Tribunal's finding of lack of fair hearing opportunity upheld, rendering proceedings vitiated. Tridip Kumar Dingal Vs St.of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768; Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322 (Paras 12, 13). C. Doctrine of Laches - Application in Service Matters - Laches applies in pension and service disputes; delay defeats equity and causes prejudice. Writ courts exercise discretion judiciously, refusing relief where negligence or inaction is evident, even for continuing causes of action. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (Paras 13). Writ Petition Dismissed.

Title: U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Govind Narain Mishra

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

English hearing

NA529/285/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1632  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Sections 483 & 145- (The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023-Section 529--- The High Court is empowered to exercise its superintendence over the Court of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it to ensure the expeditious and proper disposal of the cases by such Magistrate but when an order is passed by an Executive Magistrate or any direction is required to be issued for expeditious and proper disposal of a case which is pending before the Executive Magistrate, the High Court can't exercise its superintendence over the courts of Executive Magistrates--- The High Court under Sec. 529 BNSS(Section 483 Cr.P.C.) is not required to make any superintendence over the working of a Executive Magistrate and no direction under Section 483 Cr.P.C. (Section 529 of BNSS) can be issued to the Executive Magistrates where a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is pending before it as prescribed in Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS). Application rejected. (E-15)

Title: Sudha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

NABAIL/487/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1662  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law-The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023-Section 482--- Application seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.34 of 2025 under Sections 110, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 109, 103(1), 118(1) of B.N.S.--- That a co- accused person was taken into custody and he has been enlarged on regular bail, does not affect the right of the applicant to seek anticipatory bail and he cannot be compelled to first surrender to custody and thereafter apply for his release on bail--- The deceased died two months and eighteen days after the incident and the cause of death has been opined to be cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung disease; that the applicant is a 55 years old person and the person against whom the allegation of making assault with an axe has been levelled has already been granted bail by the Session Court whereas the allegation against the applicant is of exhortation only and the other persons have received simple injuries- -- Applicant is entitled to be granted on anticipatory bail. Application allowed. (E-15)

Title: Nafees Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

NA528/41554 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 29-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1916  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3 & 4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498- A, 323 & 307 - Matrimonial dispute - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations against husband's family members - General and omnibus allegations - Vague accusation of dowry demand and cruelty without specific acts - Contradictions between FIR and witness statements - No injury or medical corroboration for attempt to murder charge - Frequent change of Investigating Officers and procedural irregularities - Held, criminal prosecution of father-in-law, mother-in- law, and married sister-in-law on such omnibus allegations amounts to abuse of process - Case falls under categories (1), (5) and (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal- Proceedings quashed. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 34, 45, 48, 50 and 61) HELD: The Apex Court in a plethora of judgements has underscored that in matrimonial disputes, criminal proceedings against the husband's relatives can be quashed where the allegations are vague, omnibus, or lacking in specificity. This judicial stance seeks to prevent the misuse of penal provisions particularly Section 498A IPC, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives. However, the Court has mandated that allegations against each co-accused must be clear, detailed, and supported by cogent facts. Generic accusations cannot sustain criminal liability. (para 24) The Apex Court, in numerous judgements has considered the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, which prescribes punishment for acts done with the intention or knowledge that, if death had occurred, the offence would amount to murder. (Para 26) Upon examining the facts of the present case, it is evident that there are inconsistencies and deviations in the version stated in the FIR, and lacking overall clarity. The allegations levelled against the husband's family members, i.e., the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, appear to be unsubstantiated. This Court is of the considered view that, at most, it is the husband who may be held accountable for the alleged offences. However, the involvement of his family members does not seem to be supported by credible evidence. It appears that they have been unnecessarily implicated in this matter with the apparent intent to exert pressure on the husband, who is currently residing outside India as a Canadian citizen. (Para 45) In the present case, it appears to be a case of over-implication, wherein the entire family of the accused has been unnecessarily roped in, possibly with the intention of settling personal scores or due to other ulterior motives. Keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in similar matters, it becomes evident that the present case lacks substance in terms of specific and credible allegations. (Para 48) Furthermore, the informant has not mentioned any particular instance of harassment with clarity. The statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also show notable discrepancies when compared with the FIR. These inconsistencies further weaken the prosecution's case and indicate that the allegations may not be trustworthy or credible. (Para 50) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manju Rani Chauhan

English hearing

A227/14008/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 09-06-2023 (2025) 6 ILRA 92  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Civil Law - Partition suit - Preliminary decree - Modification of shares on death of co-sharer - Civil Procedure Code, S. 97 - Scope of Section 97 CPC - Power of Court to vary shares before final decree - Pending final decree, the shares are liable to be varied on account of intervening events such as death of a party or change of law, and though Section 97 CPC provides an appeal against a preliminary decree, the said provision would not be a bar to file an application for amendment of a decree. Remedy to question the preliminary decree is under Section 97 CPC by filing appeal and not by making any application for recalling the order. (Para 59-61) B. Chandi Das Basu filed Suit No. 254 of 1976 seeking partition by metes and bounds of ancestral properties. A preliminary decree determining the shares of co-sharers was passed on 27.11.1979, which was affirmed in First Appeal. For execution, Final Decree Case No. 111 of 1980 was instituted by Chandi Das Basu. On 20.06.1991, defendant no. 1, Ajay Kumar Basu (brother of Chandi Das Basu) died. On 17.02.1993 Chandi Charan Basu, brother of Chandi Das Basu, died issueless and intestate. On 27.03.1995, Chandi Das Basu executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of Tara Chandra Gupta (present petitioner), his own share and also the share of his deceased brother Chandi Charan Basu. The agreement disclosed existence of pending litigation and preliminary decree. In the year 1997, Chandi Das Basu died. His legal heirs filed substitution application in Final Decree Case No. 111/1980 on 01.07.1997, but never pressed it. On 23.08.1997 he executed another agreement to sell in favour of Naseem Uddin and Safiq Ahmad, despite the earlier 1995 agreement in favour of Tara Chandra Gupta. On 28.09.1998, Tara Chandra Gupta filed suit for specific performance against heirs of Chandi Das Basu and Naseem Uddin & Safiq Ahmad. It was decreed on 20.04.2010. First Appeal was dismissed on 22.10.2017; Second Appeal was dismissed on 28.02.2020; SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 14.09.2021. Tara Chandra Gupta's right to obtain the sale deed attained finality. On 25.04.2009, Amitabh Basu, one of the sons of late Ajay Kumar Basu (original defendant no. 1) filed Application 65-C in Final Decree Case No. 111 of 1980 seeking variation in shares of co-sharers after death of Chandi Charan Basu (who had died issueless). On 07.05.2012 Application 65-C was allowed; preliminary decree modified. On 04.02.2021 Tara Chandra Gupta filed Application 72-C to be impleaded in Final Decree Case No. 111 of 1980; which was allowed on 20.07.2021. On 13.08.2021 Tara Chandra Gupta filed Application 86-C to recall/set aside the order dated 07.05.2012 modifying the preliminary decree. Tara Chandra Gupta argued that order dated 07.05.2012 was ex parte, passed without notice to all necessary parties including heirs of Chandi Das Basu. On 08.12.2021, the sale deed was executed from the Executing Court in favour of Tara Chandra Gupta in respect of agreement to sell executed by Chandi Das Basu. Courts below rejected Tara Chandra Gupta's recall plea holding that the order of 07.05.2012 was not ex parte, parties were duly represented. Tara Chandra Gupta invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders rejecting his recall application 86-C. Held: Petitioner purchased knowing the litigation and after nine years of modification of the preliminary decree cannot allege the order dated 07.05.2012 as ex-parte. After the death of Chandi Charan Basu no formal application for amendment was moved by his heirs, the application by the legal heirs of defendant no. 1 was rightly allowed on 07.05.2012; twice publication was made for appearance of the heirs of the plaintiff, who after filing substitution application in 1997 stayed away from the litigation and even did not contest the specific performance suit. The order dated 07.05.2012 was therefore not ex-parte, and the remedy to question the preliminary decree is under Section 97 CPC by filing appeal and not by making any application for recalling the order dated 07.05.2012. Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as he knew the fact that by preliminary decree dated 27.11.1979, the shares of the parties have been defined and plaintiff-Chandi Das Basu could only transfer his 5/48 and 5/24 share of property mentioned in Schedule-A & B, but has also entered into an agreement for the share of Chandi Charan Basu without there being any modification of preliminary decree. (Para 58, 61) Dismissed. (E-5)

Title: Tara Chandra Gupta Vs. Dr. Shakti Basu & Ors.

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

English hearing

A227/6055/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 11-06-2023 (2025) 6 ILRA 91  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law - Injunction - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Petitioner preferred Original Suit and in the said suit, an interim injunction was granted - respondents filed Misc. Appeal - appellate Court cancelled the interim injunction but no further direction was given to pass fresh order on the injunction application - petition disposed of directing the Court below before whom the Original Suit was pending to decide the interim injunction application afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned (Para 5, 6). Allowed. (E-5)

Title: Jokhoo Ram Vs. Santosh & Ors.

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

English hearing

WPIL/638/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 11-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 83  

HEADNOTE hearing

Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Requirement of disclosure of credentials - Rule 1(3-A), Chapter XXII, Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - PIL filed by a Trust through its Chairman challenging alleged irregularities in NEET-2025 Physics paper - No disclosure of credentials in precise and specific manner - No material to show espousal of cause of any marginalized section of society - Absence of authorization/resolution of Trust permitting Chairman to institute proceedings - Petition held not maintainable. (Paras 23, 28 to 32) HELD: The requirement of disclosure of credentials from the petitioner is indeed necessary to bring on record the complete background of the person who is coming before the Court. This information helps to establish the petitioner's credibility, locus standi, and his genuineness. Providing credentials also demonstrates that the petitioner has the necessary expertise, knowledge and understanding of the gravity and seriousness involved in the matter. The said information should not be vague and indefinite. The word 'credentials' connotes the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job. (Para 23) Thus, this Court has no hesitation to note that the petitioner has not disclosed credentials in the manner as required under the relevant Rules. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition espousing the cause of any member of a disadvantageous section of the society or any person, who is downtrodden or for certain disabled person, who is unable to approach the Court or that the matter in question relates to infringement or denial of any basic human right to such marginalized section of the society which enables the petitioner to espouse their cause. (Para 28) In the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that to save the misuse of the process of the Court in the name of Public Interest Litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently pressed for the proper disclosure of the credential of the petitioner. Furthermore, under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the words 'should precisely and specifically state' as has been envisaged, itself indicates the importance and necessity of the disclosure of the credentials by the petitioner. The same cannot be ignored/overlooked by the Courts before entertaining a petition as Public Interest Litigation. (Para 30) Upon due consideration of the facts in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that since credentials, as required under Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, have not been disclosed as required nor it has been filed on behalf of the marginalized section of the society, poor, deprived, illiterate or the disabled persons, who cannot approach the Court independently for redressal of the legal wrong or the injury caused to them. (Para 31) In addition to above, no document is on record to show that the person claiming himself to be the Chairman of the Trust is authorized to file the present writ petition on behalf of the Trust. The law on the subject is well settled that in absence of any resolution or the proof of authorization the petition is not entertainable. (Para 32) Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

Title: Deebandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.

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

English hearing

FAFO/2075/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 20-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 69  

HEADNOTE hearing

Temporary injunction-Transfer of Property Act-Sec.52-Suit for partition filed by the appellant-plaintiff- along with 6C-2 -Temporary Injunction Application was rejected vide impugned order-for granting interim injunction- three factors are required to be considered - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss-in present case- it is a case of partition -and plaintiff and defendants both have equal right over the property in dispute- unless it is divided- protection of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act-but in case interim injunction is not granted-will create multiplicity of litigations- impugned judgment and order and decree are bad and set aside- parties are directed to maintain the status quo. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Title: Km. Sunita Vs. Smt. Manju & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Neeraj Tiwari

English hearing

CRLA/2284/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 19-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 66  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2)(5) & 14-A(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section - 201 & 302- Criminal Appeal - filed u/s 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, - for quashing the impugned order - whereby court below rejected the Bail Application - FIR - offence of murder - arrest - Bail application - Rejected - plea taken in defence that, though appellant is named in FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and merely on the basis of alleged evidence of last seen appellant has been made accused - court finds that, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears except the evidence of last seen and the fact that on the pointing out of the appellant on brick allegedly used in crime was recovered and there is no other evidence - as well as no any previous criminal history - held, merely on the basis of recovery of a brick on the pointing out of the appellant at this stage it cannot be said that appellant committed the murder - consequently, impugned order by which bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail - instant appeal stands allowed - Appellant be released on bail with strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, allowing the prosecution to seek cancellation if any condition is breached. (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15, 16) Application Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Danish @ Bakra @ Dilshad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sameer Jain

English hearing

NA528/36693 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1834  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Procedure - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 210 & 213 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 31, 33 & 42A - Cognizance - Power of Special Court - Whether Special Judge under POCSO Act can summon an accused not charge- sheeted on the basis of victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS - Held, Special Court derives cognizance power exclusively from Section 33 POCSO Act; it may take cognizance only upon complaint or police report, not upon its own "knowledge" - Section 210 BNSS inapplicable in view of Section 42A POCSO Act - Summoning order based on victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS unsustainable - Matter remanded for fresh order. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9) HELD: After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that there is slight difference between the normal procedure available under BNSS, 2023 as well as in comparison to the procedure available under POCSO Act, 2012. However, it is mentioned under Section 31 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 that application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceeding before a Special Court shall be applicable, is related to the procedure for commencement of trial so far as regarding the procedure for taking cognizance of offence, it is specifically mentioned under Section 33 of POCSO Act, 2012 and so far as regarding power vest with Section 33 of POCSO Act, 2012 is concerned, it deals with Section 42(A) of POCSO Act, 2012 wherein, it is specifically mentioned that the provision of this Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and in case of any inconsistency the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provision of any such law to the extent of inconsistency. In the strict consonance of Section 42(A), it is Section 33 of POCSO Act, 2012 which will be applicable before the learned Session Court for taking cognizance of offence, if the same has been taken in pursuance to the certain offences made out in pursuance to Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. (Para 7) In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 07.10.2024 is not sustainable in the eye of law since the same has been passed not in pursuance to the police report or the complaint which attracted the offence carried out by the applicant whereas the same has been passed in pursuance to the statement record by the victim under Section 183 BNSS, 2023. (Para 8) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Sitam @ Prince Minor Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

CRLA/2275/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 19-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 64  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 180 & 183 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections â?? 3(2)(V) & 14-A(2) - Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 333, 352, 351(2) & 351(3) - Criminal Appeal - filed u/s 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, - for quashing the impugned order - whereby court below rejected Bail Application - FIR - offence of rape and prepared obscene video - alleged that accused appellant under the pretext of false promise of marriage sexually exploited the victim - arrest - Statement recorded under section 180 and 183 of BNSS - Bail Application - Rejected - pleas taken in defence that, victim is major lady, and she was consenting party ?? court finds that, there is no video on record, - admittedly, victim lady is major lady and she was in a consensual relationship, - no previous criminal history - held, impugned order by which bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail - accordingly, instant appeal stands allowed - Appellant be released on bail with strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, allowing the prosecution to seek cancellation if any condition is breached. (Para - 10, 11, 12, 13) Application Allowed. (E-11)

Title: Anshu Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sameer Jain

English hearing

CRLA/2045 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 20-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 62  

HEADNOTE hearing

Bail -Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-Criminal appeal u/s 14-A(2)-initially FIR lodged u/s 103 BNS and other sections against the appellant and another -with regard to murder of the wife of the o.p. no.2- but subsequently the case was converted u/s 108 BNS-abatement to suicide-if appellant was having illicit relationship with the deceased -then it cannot be said that due to his abetment she committed suicide-Bail granted. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Title: Kamal Bharbhuja Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Sameer Jain

English hearing

NA528/526/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 03-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 58  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1) & 109(1) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 174 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - NCR was lodged on 28.11.2024 under various Sections of BNS for incident that occurred on same day - Subsequently, medical report revealed head injury caused by sharp-edged weapon - Based on this, another Section 118(1), BNS, being cognizable and non-bailable was added and NCR was converted into FIR - Thereafter chargesheet submitted - After filing of charge sheet, Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons, which is under challenge - Petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions but withdrew them on 02.05.2025 without liberty to raise same grounds again - Those grounds are no longer available - Since NCR was converted into FIR due to addition of cognizable offence based on medical report, police was legally empowered to investigate - Considering overall facts, no illegality is found in proceedings - Application lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 6, 12, 15) Application dismissed. (E-13)

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

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

English hearing

A482/491/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 13-06-2025 (2025) 6 ILRA 2  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504, 506, 325 & 308 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Impugned summoning order is based on St.ments of injured witnesses (PW-1), (PW-2)/complainant and witness of fact (PW-3), who levelled specific allegations against applicant, also found in NCR - Challenge to order is based on ground that earlier application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn without Court's permission to file a fresh one - It is contended that subsequent application under same Section was not maintainable - Testimony of injured witnesses holds high evidentiary value and should not be lightly discarded - At this stage, trial court need not assess evidence on merits, that is to be done during trial - First application was withdrawn for bona fide reasons, as it was informed that named person, had already passed away - Subsequently, second application was filed - Judgment in Baccha Lal @ Vijay Singh (infra) is per incuriam and not binding, liable to be disregarded - No illegality in impugned order. (Para 4, 6, 24 to 26) Application dismissed. (E-13)

Title: Deepak Singh @ Subham Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

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

English hearing

CRLR/4171 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1947  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance to wife - Compliance of Supreme Court directions - Filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities - Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 - Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023 - Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 - Persistent non-compliance by Family Courts - Repeated circulars and judicial training ignored - Chronic delay in deciding interim maintenance - Systemic judicial inertia - Directions issued for statewide compliance and accountability - Registrar General to place order before Hon'ble Chief Justice. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 22-24, 27-34) HELD: Parting with the facts of the instance case, this is not the first case in which this Court has noticed non-compliance with the above referred judgments. This Court has observed that circulations of judgments on the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court by this Court have a little effect on the working of the trial Courts, despite regular training and sensitization programmes by the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow, it is out of the understanding of this Court why the Judicial Officers are failed to understand the consequences of non-compliance of the orders, passed by the Constitutional Courts even though, it is premature to come to any conclusion as of now. Therefore, this Court directed all the learned Principal Judges, Family Courts established under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, to file a compliance report in view of the Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra) and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi case (supra) in a sealed cover of their own Court, along with all the Family Courts working under their supervision and control. (Para 10) This Court feels compelled to express its concern about summoning such a report on the judicial side. This Court is aware that this action may negatively impact the morale of Judicial Officers. However, for the effective and consistent implementation of the Supreme Court's directives, this Court has no option but to monitor the Family Courts so far as the implementation of the judgments is concerned. Despite issuing numerous orders to the learned Principal Judge of Family Courts individually, widely circulating the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and conducting training programs by JTRI in Lucknow, as well as seminars on Family Court Sensitisation by the Sensitisation of Family Courts Committee, this Court have observed minimal impact in practice (Para 11) Despite the law's clear mandate for speedy relief, interim maintenance is subjected to endless delays- often involving 70 to 90 adjournments over nearly a decade. Such routine adjournments exemplify the plight of thousands of women who are re-victimized by a sluggish and indifferent judicial system. Maintenance laws are intended as social welfare legislation, designed to prevent destitution. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), has prescribed clear timelines for the disposal of maintenance applications, underscoring the necessity of affidavits of assets and liabilities and time- bound decisions. Yet, a woman's plea for basic subsistence is frequently buried beneath the weight of adjournments, judicial absenteeism, and procedural delays. (Para 27) The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to establish specialized courts for the expeditious resolution of matrimonial and family disputes-particularly matters of maintenance, custody, and domestic violence, which require urgent adjudication. However, the very purpose of creating separate Family Courts appears to be defeated due to poor infrastructure, an overwhelming backlog of cases, frequent adjournments, non-functional courtrooms, and undue delays-such as waiting over a decade and enduring 70 to 90 adjournments even for interim maintenance. (Para 29) Despite the clear and specific directions laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and subsequent authoritative pronouncements, a disturbing trend has emerged wherein the learned Family Court Judges routinely fail to implement these mandates. Judges often neglect to require the mandatory filing of "Assets and Liabilities Affidavits" from both parties-affidavits intended to prevent concealment, promote transparency, and facilitate fair maintenance orders. No fixed timelines are enforced by the Courts, and routine adjournments are granted without sufficient justification. Noncooperative parties are are not penalized by the imposition of reasonable costs for evading proceedings. Consequently, interim maintenance applications remain undecided for years, despite being summary proceeding in nature, and there are no effective or practical consequences for non-compliance with the High Court's orders. (Para 31) Reverting to the facts of this case, neither party has chosen to file the affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra), disclosing all sources of income, in compliance with the order dated 23.5.2024. The office report dated 11.12.2024 reflects that notice was duly received by the respondent- wife, and a Vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf. Upon perusal, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court, as the record indicates that the revisionist-husband holds a senior position in Gail India Limited. It is made clear that, in the event the revisionist husband fails to pay the maintenance, recovery shall be affected in accordance with the directions laid down in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and Others [Criminal Revision Defective No. 1789 of 2023]. (Para 35) Petition dismissed. (E-14)

Title: Nirmal Kumar Fukan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar

English hearing

BAIL/13376/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 28-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1907  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 306 IPC), Section 108 - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients - Maid found dead in employer's house - Allegation of suicide due to harassment at workplace - No suicide note - No evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or aiding the act - Statements of co-worker and parents of deceased silent on abetment - Delay of five days in lodging FIR - Deceased's last calls with third person (boyfriend) indicate private cause - Mens rea absent - Prima facie case not made out - Bail granted. (Paras 7.1-7.4, 9.1, 9.3, 11.9-11.15) HELD: In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 108 BNS, 2023 (corresponding Section 306 IPC), there must be case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. (Para 7.1) To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. (Para 7.2) -In the light of above mentioned settled law, in case of suicide, a person is liable for abetment if the person has inter alia instigated the deceased for committing suicide or has engaged in any conspiracy for committing suicide or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. (Para 7.4) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Jahid Baig @ Jahid Jamal Beg Vs. State of U.P.

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

English hearing

CRLA/74 /2020 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1899  

HEADNOTE hearing

A. Criminal matter-Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 302-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 374 (2)- Challenge to-Conviction-deceased died by burning in her matrimonial home-The deceased had a love marriage with the accused-The prosecution failed to establish any motive or prior incident of quarrel-No eye witness or documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was murdered-PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 did not support the prosecution as all witnesses were relatives of the deceased who did not witness the incident themselves-The main witness, Rita (Jethani) was not examined-Medical report did not support the prosecution version as the cause of death attributed to shock and extensive burning-The Court relied on the precedent Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. St. of Mah. which emphasized that in case of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be conclusively proven to establish guilt- Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 1 to 38) B. It is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused. (Para 27) The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

Title: Vinod Patel Vs. State of U.P.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Siddhartha Varma,Madan Pal Singh

English hearing

A482/12482 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1879  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Police investigation - Quality of investigation - Closure report filed without forensic examination - Protest petition allowed - Quashing of summoning order - Systemic reform - Directions for mandatory review of charge-sheets by prosecution - Implementation of scientific investigation and modern police training - Circular No. DG/Circular-06/2018 reaffirmed - Held, investigation must be fair, scientific, and based on evidence; mechanical, perfunctory or biased investigations violate Articles 20 and 21 - Summoning order based on non-existent forged document unsustainable - Proceedings quashed - Comprehensive directions issued for modernizing police investigation and training. (Paras 8, 9, 12, 13, 25, 33, 38 and 39) HELD: Recently, in Sanuj Bansal v. State of U.P. & Anr 4 , the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, gave an undertaking that chargesheets in the state are not filed solely on the basis of confessional statements. However, this Court has observed that, in practice, chargesheets are routinely filed on a daily basis relying primarily on the confessional statements of co-accused, without any discovery of corroborative evidence- an approach that is in clear derogation of the law. (Para 12) It is also interesting to discuss that the reports filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are routinely filed in template formats without having sufficient material enabling the Courts to come to a reasonable conclusion that the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet are made out prima-facie. The C.D. may suggest sequence of events but the C.D. cannot replace the requirement of detailed descriptions of steps taken by the Investigating Officer along with the relevant facts and evidence collected during investigation, in column-16 of the police report filed under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Para 13) Keeping in mind the aforesaid deliberations, vide order dated 18.9.2024 a copy of the charge sheet was forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh; the Director General of Police; and the Director General (Training), Headquarters, with the direction to review the same and assess whether charge- sheets filed by the police are in consonance with the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dablu Kujur (supra) and Sharif Ahmad (supra). Following such assessment, they were directed to propose measures, including a comprehensive training programme for police personnel from constables to Superintendents of Police (S.S.P.) -aimed at enhancing their professional competencies. The D.G. (Training) was further expected to hold broad consultations with A.D.Gs, I.Gs, D.I.Gs, S.Ps., Additional S.Ps., and D.S.Ps. posted at various Police Training Centres across Uttar Pradesh. Additionally, the Secretary (Law), A.D.G. (Prosecution), and Director (Prosecution), Uttar Pradesh, were also expected to be consulted in this process. (Para 25) Upon consideration of the facts and legal submissions, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings has been manifestly attended with mala-fide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners and with the view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. The Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. (Para 38) Accordingly, I find merit in the submissions advanced by Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants. The impugned summoning order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the proceedings arising out of FIR Case Crime No. 8 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the complainant/respondent no. 2 to approach the police in accordance with law, in the event that any incriminating material surfaces establishing the essential ingredients of cheating or forgery against the applicants. (Para 39) Appeal partly allowed. (E-14)

Title: Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar

English hearing

CRLR/3355/2018 Judgment/Order Date: 17-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1865  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 345, 346, 352 & 195 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 188 & 228 - Contempt in the face of Court - Scope of power of subordinate criminal courts - Procedure under Section 345 Cr.P.C. - Conviction of Investigating Officer by Special Judge (POCSO) for disobedience of judicial direction - Held, conviction under Section 188 IPC without following procedure under Sections 345 & 195 Cr.P.C. illegal - Offence not committed in view or presence of Court - Trial Court acted de hors its jurisdiction - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 18, 20, 24, 25, 27 and 28) HELD: The plain reading of Section 345 Cr.P.C. transpires that the concerned provision is attracted when the offence of Indian Penal Code described under Section 175 (omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it), Section 178 (refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it), Section 179 (refusing to answer public servant authorised to question), Section 180 (refusing to sign statement); or Section 228 (intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding) is committed, but the condition prerequisite in exercise of Section 345 Cr.P.C. is that the offence(s) is committed 'in the view or presence of any civil, criminal or revenue court'. In the present case the alleged offence has not been considered to have been committed in view of or in presence of the learned trial court because the substance of show cause notice only shows that the Court has initiated to proceed in disobedience of its order passed during the investigation of the case. (para 18) This Court has found that the proceeding by the learned trial court has not been carried out under Section 345 Cr.P.C., but it is the one that has been conducted purely and explicitly under Section 188 IPC. It is required to be considered, whether the learned trial court has rightly convicted the revisionist under Section 188 IPC, though, Section 346 Cr.P.C. provides that if the Court is of the opinion that the case should not be disposed of under Section 345 Cr.P.C. then the case shall be forwarded to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same; and Section 352 Cr.P.C. has taken away the power of contempt from the criminal court other than the Judge of a High Court. (Para 20) Even if, it is considered that the learned trial court has registered a case against the revisionist for offence under Section 188 IPC on the basis of application of Special Court Ahalmad, Narendra Kumar and Court Moharrir, Bharat Singh, as a complaint, then the learned trial court has got no jurisdiction to try the case in view of Sections 345 and 346 Cr.P.C.. It is further required to point out here that the said alleged cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court on 19th September, 2018 and on 20th September, 2018 the impugned judgement of conviction has been recorded and sentence has been awarded against the revisionist. It is also a matter of grave concern that no material and evidences were adduced before the trial court in a day, which led to the basis of conviction of revisionist. It is further, a matter of grave concern that the revisionist/accused has not been given a fair chance to give his explanation or to defend his case and the trial court has reached to the conclusion, that the alleged disobedience on the part of the revisionist/accused has cause danger to human life, health or safety or causes a riot or affray and therefore punish with a graver punishment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which has got no rational basis. (Para 24) The matter in hand has it's genesis on the report of Ahalmad and Court Moharrir of the Court. The record is silent about the authority of the two officials of the court to submit report against the Investigating Officer of a case and how such a report qualified the term 'Complaint', provided under Section 195 Cr.P.C., but this Court is of the view that the suo-moto report of the court Ahalmad and court Moharrir cannot be considered as a 'complaint'. Moreover, the record is also silent that the orders and directions issued by the Special POCSO Judge to the Investigating Officer of case crime no. 508 of 2018 is a time bound order. The judgement is also silent on the point whether any date has been fixed for compliance of the said order. Further, the proceeding reflects that no charge under Section 188 IPC has been framed against the revisionist, in absence whereof the proceedings, conviction and sentence became improper and legally not tenable and liable to be set aside. (Para 27) Revision allowed. (E-14)

Title: Chandradhar Gaur Vs. State of U.P.

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

English hearing

A482/12048 /2023 Judgment/Order Date: 27-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1849  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 19 - Sanction for prosecution - Validity - Bank officials accused of conspiracy and defalcation - Sanction granted under Section 19 PC Act also purporting to cover offences under Indian Penal Code - Competence and application of mind - Held, sanction under Section 19 PC Act cannot extend to IPC offences - Authority not competent to sanction prosecution for offences beyond PC Act - Sanction "for the said offences and for any other offences under any other law" shows total non-application of mind - Vitiates sanction and cognizance order - Discharge granted. (Paras 41, 43, 44 and 45) HELD: The applicants were working in Axis Bank, which is not even a nationalized Bank, and it is not disputed that the applicants were not holding a post where they could not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the government. In this view of the matter the provisions of Section 197 are not attracted to the case of the applicants. The prosecution sanction order dated 02.02.2022 issued by the President and Head Corporate Affairs of Axis Bank, Mumbai, states that the allegations levelled against 20 persons, including the applicants, have been corroborated by the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents collected during investigation of the case. After careful examination and perusal of the documents and statements of the witnesses it has been found that offences u/s 120-B read with 409, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and substantive offence thereof are made out against 20 persons, including the applicants. The sanctioning authority proceeded to state that after fully and carefully examining the documents, copies of the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other materials placed before him and having applied his mind properly in regard to the said allegations and circumstances of the case, considered that offences u/s 120-B read with 409, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 (A) I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and substantive offence thereof are made out against the applicants and other persons and therefore the authority has accorded sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the applicants and other persons 'for the said offences and for any other offence(s) punishable under any other provisions of law in respect of the said acts and for taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction'. (Para 41) While recording the aforesaid reason, the learned trial court failed to appreciate that neither any sanction had been sought for prosecution of the applicants for the offences under Penal Code nor was the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the offences under the Penal Code. The sanction of prosecution "for the said offences and for any other offence(s) punishable under any other provisions of law in respect of the said acts" for which no sanction was obtained, indicates a total non-application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable. It indicates that the sanctioning authority has acted as a mere rubber stamp. Non- application of mind by the sanctioning authority vitiates the sanction order dated 02.02.2023 as also the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the trial Court rejecting the discharge application. (Para 43) The order of sanction after a proper application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record is a prerequisite for prosecution of a public servant, as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants. This safeguard cannot be dealt with in a casual and mechanical manner. (Para 45) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Sri Sushant Gupta & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation S.C.B. Lko

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

English hearing

A482/41453 /2024 Judgment/Order Date: 30-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1837  

HEADNOTE hearing

Family Law - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 12, 21 & 23 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Custody of minor female child - Welfare of child - Paramount consideration - Female child entering puberty - Custody to mother preferred - Father deceitfully taking custody through manipulation - Digital evidence (SMS, WhatsApp chats, Google Maps timeline) corroborating mother's case - Custody directed to be handed to mother within three days - Child's welfare not subservient to patriarchal presumption under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Visitation rights to father reserved. (Paras 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 28) HELD: The principle that the father is the natural guardian of the minor child-boy or unmarried girl, and after him, the mother is primarily derived from section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, though seminal at its time. Now it smacks patriarchal bias, therefore, become obsolete in the progressive realities of 21st- century in India. The judicial interpretation has commendably filled the legislative void, especially in recognizing the preferential custodial rights of mothers of girl children. However, true progress demands that the legislature codify these evolving norms to ensure a consistent and gender-neutral approach across the country. (Para 15) In child custody proceedings, especially involving a minor girl entering puberty, the role of the family court judge is not merely adjudicative but deeply protective and facilitative. The transition into adolescence is a sensitive period marked by profound emotional and physical changes, and the law recognises the need for careful, child centric engagement by the judiciary. The judge is tasked with upholding not just statutory rights but also the child's dignity, safety, emotional well-being, and evolving autonomy. (Para 19) When deciding custody of a girl who has just entered puberty, courts shall consider: (i) who the primary caregiver has been, (ii) the girl's schooling, community ties, and stability, (iii) allegations of abuse, neglect, or inappropriate behaviour, and (iv) demeanour and conduct of the parities to the litigation. The judicial role in custody matters involving minor girls entering puberty is far more than a procedural function- it is a constitutional, moral, and empathetic responsibility. A judge must rise above adversarial structures and act as a trustee of the child's welfare. This calls for a gender-sensitive, emotionally intelligent, and child-centred judicial approach, ensuring that the dignity, safety, and well-being of the child remain the unwavering focus of custody decisions. (Para 20) The mother has a unique position in the case of the custody of the female child. In most cases, the mother is naturally better positioned to understand and support a daughter going through puberty because of shared biological experience. The mother has personally experienced menstruation, other female-specific changes, and comfort in discussing such issues. The girls often feel more comfortable talking to their mothers about body changes, menstrual hygiene, etc. The mother often plays the more effective role in emotional attunement, being a natural caregiver, and is more likely to notice subtle psychological shifts. The society and family dynamics often encourage closer emotional bonding between mother and daughter, especially during adolescence. (Para 21) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Saumya Sajiv Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Vinod Diwakar

English hearing

CRLP/8881/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 06-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1828  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law-The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986-Sections 2 & 3(1) -The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021- Rule 5 (3) (A)---It is not disputed that the earlier writ petition was allowed on procedural grounds and that liberty was granted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. From the record, it appears that the authorities have now complied with the requisite procedural mandates including completion of base case investigations, preparation of gang-chart, convening of a joint meeting, approval by the District Magistrate after application of mind. The petitioner has a long-standing criminal history and the allegations pertain to organized crime across multiple districts---No procedural illegality or arbitrariness has been demonstrated in the initiation of the present proceedings under the Act, 198. Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Title: Jitendra Paswan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

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

English hearing

BAIL/17325/2025 Judgment/Order Date: 26-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1818  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 354 & 506 - Bail - Allegation of rape and molestation by father and guardian on daughter and niece - Delay of one year in lodging FIR - Victims' inconsistent St.ments - Absence of medical or forensic corroboration - Prior disputes between families and cross- litigations - Alleged misuse of guardianship - Criminal history explained - Held, where prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions, unexplained delay, and absence of corroboration, bail cannot be denied merely on moral considerations - Bail granted. (Paras 14, 52, 54, 57 and 58) HELD: The allegations if found true are of extreme mental depravity and must be dealt with an iron hand. However, branding the applicant as a 'paedophile' in the present matter is premature and legally untenable, particularly in the absence of any prior conduct or antecedent allegations supporting such a characterization in the FIR. (Para 54) In the present case, the two victims have repeatedly altered their St.ments, exhibiting inconsistency akin to a pendulum. It is also pertinent to note that the First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged by the applicant concerning the two victims only at a time when they were minors. The said FIRs were filed against the victims' alleged lovers and their family members. Additionally, the present FIR has been lodged after a considerable delay of approximately one year. Furthermore, there is an absence of forensic evidence to substantiate the allegations. There is no recovery of any video either. (Para 57) Considering these facts, the wavering testimonies of the witnesses, the delayed lodging of the FIR, the lack of forensic corroboration, and the nature of the earlier FIRs, coupled by the fact that the criminal antecedents have been explained, taking into consideration the settled dictum that 'bail is rule and jail an exception' this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. (Para 58) Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Pradeep Soni Vs. State of U.P.

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

English hearing

COPP/6/2012 Judgment/Order Date: 22-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1805  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law-The Companies Act,1956- Sections 439(1)(b), 433(e) (f) & 434(1)(a) - The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985-Section 20(1)--- Petition seeking winding up of the respondent/Co. mainly on the ground that it has failed to pay the admitted amounts of Rs.21,55,52,263/--- The petition lacking a prayer for winding up of a Co. under Section 433(c) of the Act cannot be considered in view of the lack of prayer--- The claim of the petitioner/Co. based upon the 'assignment deed' cannot be a foundation for seeking winding up-- - To appreciate a case for winding up of a Co. on the ground that it is just and equitable, it is essential for the Court to form a view that in view of the status of the Co., if the Co. is not wound up, the same would amount to a threat to the commercial world and the existence of the Co. is not desirable for the commercial world. No such material exists to form a view that the Co. if not wound up would be a threat to the commercial world and/or can lead to further defrauding of creditors, more so, when the respondent/Co. has categorically undertaken to settle the dues of the Provident Fund within a period of three weeks of the decision of the present case along with any other due payable to any other creditor. Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Title: Zaitek Polyblends Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Durga Bansal Fertilizer Ltd.

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

English hearing

A482/39316/2023 Judgment/Order Date: 12-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1783  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 & 304A - Medical negligence - Prosecution of doctor - Scope of criminal liability - Confessional St.ment to police - Inadmissibility - Medical Board exonerating the applicant - Magistrate's failure to consider expert opinion before summoning - Held, confession recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. inadmissible - Medical practitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 304, 304AIPC unless gross or reckless negligence of a very high degree is proved- Proceedings quashed. (Paras 29, 48, 55, 59, 66 and 69) HELD: Coming to the merits of the case, two issues have been touched upon by learned counsel for the applicant. The primary issue for consideration is whether a St.ment recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can form the basis for initiating criminal proceedings against the applicant, and whether such a St.ment is admissible as evidence for that purpose. (Para 29) In light of the legal principles established in Jacob Mathew (supra) case, the liability of a doctor for medical negligence must be assessed carefully. A doctor who diligently treats and cures a patient should not be held criminally liable for mere errors in judgment or minor lapses. However, those doctors who act with gross negligence, demonstrating a blatant disregard for standard medical practices, can be held accountable under criminal law. (Para 48) In Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Punj. & anr.11 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, held that mere lack of care or an act of negligence, which may give rise to civil liability, is not sufficient to attract criminal liability. The Court emphasized that negligence, for the purpose of establishing a criminal offence, must be of a gross or very high degree. Only such aggravated negligence can amount to a criminal act warranting penal consequences. (Para 55) It is an admitted position that the applicant was a qualified doctor. There are no specific allegations of any act of omission or commission against the accused persons in the entire plethora of documents relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. The act of giving injections as attributed to the doctor, even if accepted to be true, could be described as an act of negligence as there may have been a lack of due care and precaution prior to giving the injections. But, the Court cannot categorically hold the applicant criminally liable for this act of negligence as he may be his carelessness or want of due attention. As has already been discussed and observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.VS Narayan Rao (supra) that an error of judgment in giving five injections consequently, as in the present case, does not amount to criminal negligence. (Para 59) In the case of Dr. Mohan vs. St. of T.N. & anr.14 , the Apex Court has held that after reading over accusation of instructing a staff nurse to administer an injection over telephone which injection when administered to the patient, apparently reacted, resulting into his death would not constitute an offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and could be covered by Section 304A IPC. (Para 66) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Dr. Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Coram (Hon'ble Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr.) Justice: Manju Rani Chauhan

English hearing

CLRE/80/2011 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1767  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law -The Provincial Small Cause Court Act 1887-Section 23 & 25---The Court of Small Causes is not denuded from considering the issue of title which incidentally arises in a suit before it. While considering an application under section 23 PSCC, the SCC court is not obligated to mechanically refer the suit to be decided by a regular court. In all cases where the issue of title is raised, the Court is required to consider the case and only if it finds that intricate questions of title are involved can it refer and return the plaint to be presented before the regular court. The power conferred under section 23 is discretionary in nature but even discretion which is to be exercised, should be within the four corners of law--- A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment is seen on the parameters of subsistence of relationship between the parties as that of landlord and tenant. The question of title is never to be decided by the SCC Court and in case if it is incidentally raised by a party then the Court is competent to decide the same, prima facie, for the purposes of adjudicating a SCC Suit and in any case any such incidental finding is always subject to the decision of a suit filed and decided by regular courts. Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Title: Jugeshwar Prasad Vs. Hanuman Prasad

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

English hearing

FAFO/37 /2022 Judgment/Order Date: 08-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1756  

HEADNOTE hearing

Civil Law- The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 147--- The accident is said to have occurred on 08.01.2016 and the policy which had been issued on 28.11.2014 was cancelled on 09.01.2015 and the intimation to the insured was sent on 11.02.2015 i.e. the policy having been cancelled and the holder having been informed are all events which took place prior to the accident consequently there cannot be any occasion for an insurance policy to have subsisted on the date of accident i.e. 08.01.2016 and as such, the insurance Co. cannot be held liable to pay the amount at the first instance and to recover from the owne. Matter remitted. (E-15)

Title: The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Reetu Devi & Ors.

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

English hearing

CRLR/478 /2025 Judgment/Order Date: 09-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1745  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B & 420 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Discharge - Scope - Subletting of Government contract by public sector company through pre-tender tie-up - Allegation of conspiracy causing loss to public exchequer - Plea that no person cheated and offence compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. - Held, cheating of Government constitutes offence under Section 420 IPC as 'St.' falls within definition of 'person' under Section 11 IPC - Charge not speculative merely because exact loss not quantified - Offences under Sections 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act non-compoundable - No ground for discharge - Revisions dismissed. (Paras 27, 28, 32, 37, 39 and 41) HELD: The second submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is the amount of losses has not been quantified and the charge is merely speculative. When it is apparent from the material available on record that the Government had awarded the contract to NPCC for Rs.14,60,62,604/-, NPCC sublet the contract to UCC for Rs.13.82 crores and UCC further sublet the contract to Sat Sai Earth Works Rs.7.16 crores i.e. almost half the amount of contract value of NPCC and the contract has been awarded without following the usual process of inviting tenders so as to ensure availability of best rates, prima facie a case of causing wrongful loss to the Public Exchequer is made out which needs to be tried by the trial Court. (Para 28) Definition of the word 'person' given in Section 11 of the Penal Code is wide enough to include any association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. It would certainly include within its ambit the St. Government, which is a body of persons. If the accused persons have deceived the Government by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing it to enter into a contract with NPCC, which contract was first sub-let to UCC and thereafter it was further sub-let to M/s Sat Sai Earth Works at almost half of the contract value and thereby an excessive amount was paid to NPCC, which act has caused financial loss to the Government, the accused persons have committed the offence of cheating. If any person was involved in the criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, he is liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, I find no force in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. (Para 32) The revisionist has been charged for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy for committing the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The revisionist has also been charged for commission of offences under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which offences are also non-compoundable offences. Therefore, the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is misconceived. (Para 37) When the offences under Section 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not compoundable offences, the alleged lack of opportunity of compounding for want of any natural person having been cheated, with whose consent the offence could have been compounded, does not make out a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings. (Para 39) Application allowed. (E-14)

Title: Praveen Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.

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

English hearing

CRLA/11357/2024 Judgment/Order Date: 14-05-2025 (2025) 5 ILRA 1733  

HEADNOTE hearing

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 374-Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence--- Prosecution story relies on the narration that the deceased was done to death on 10.01.2023--- Theory is unbelievable in face of clear medical opinion that the death was caused on 21.01.2023--- The evidence of last seen and the occurrence caused on 21.01.2023, is so far distant in time that it renders it wholly uncredible and unreliable to the point of being extraneous to the essential facts that the prosecution set out to prove--- Occurrence/manner of death was never proven on the strength of any circumstantial evidence. In fact, the homicidal nature of that occurrence itself was not established--- Prosecution story based solely on such circumstantial evidence is wholly disjointed, there is a complete break of the chain of evidence which remained unexplained by the prosecution --- merely because the occurrence may have been caused and merely because one accused may have been named for reason of motive disclosed, it may not be enough for the prosecution to claim that it had proof of the occurrence caused by such accused. The test of proof beyond reasonable doubt would remain to be satisfied by the prosecution by proving each circumstance in the chain of circumstances relied by it, motive being one but not the only material circumstance. Judgment of conviction set aside. Appeal allowed. (E-15)

Title: Sukh Lal Vs. State of U.P.

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

English hearing