High Court of Allahabad has suggested to opt for CrPC 239 at Trial Court, instead of CrPC 482 at High Court.
Santosh Kumar Yadav And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 8 September, 2016
Category: High Court of Allahabad Judgment
Mohd. Farid Vs Union Of India And Another on 20 December, 2016
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in this writ petition has held that,
Mohd. Farid Vs Union Of India And Another on 20 December, 2016the Passport Authority will have to take objective consideration while proceeding to exercise his discretion whether pendency of such criminal case warrants impounding of passport or not keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner. Apart from this in the present case what we find that the Passport Officer has proceeded to pass the order only on the premise that criminal case is pending before this Court and at no point of time reply that has been submitted by the petitioner that he was having matrimonial discord and the said criminal case have direct nexus with the same and in view of this, in the facts of the case, statutory obligation to record reasons under sub-section 5 of Section 10 also remains uncomplied with and as such, the order dated 26.10.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Passport Officer is free to pass fresh order as already mentioned above.
If any idiotic officer at Passport officer impounds your passport without application of her/his mind, use this order to show their BS.
Dipanshi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2016
Taking away the list of judgments cited in this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, here is the judgment.
The facts would reveal that the second petitioner is aged about 32 years and the first petitioner is merely 18 years, second petitioner despite fully being aware that he has a living spouse, he duped the first petitioner and convinced her to elope with him under a false assurance of second marriage. Thereafter, the second petitioner had audacity to swear a false affidavit before the Court stating that this is his first marriage, thus, indulging in fraud and misrepresentation, both with the first petitioner and with the Constitutional Court. Such conduct cannot be ignored, law has to take its own course.
In regard thereto, false affidavit on oath has been filed by the second petitioner to misrepresent before the Court, which is wilful and deliberate, thus, exposing himself for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. No further enquiry or explanation is required.
Registrar General is directed to lodge a complaint before the competent Magistrate at Allahabad against the second
petitioner for filing false affidavit to mislead the Court. Second petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith. The first petitioner being adult is let free.
Dipanshi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2016
Pooja Vs. Vijay Chaitanya on 6 April, 2018
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that “the appeal even against a consent decree under such facts and circumstances of the case, where the consent itself is disputed and no inquiry has been conducted by the court below is maintainable, subject to objection on appearance by the other side.”
Pooja Vs. Vijay Chaitanya on 6 April, 2018
Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
Justice A.Mateen of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench directed the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.
Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
Chiranjeev Kumar Arya Vs State Of U.P. & Another on 29 June, 2016
This is a wonderful and interesting judgment from Hon’ble Allahabad High Court involving advocate fraud.
Salient Point of interest:
- Interim granted under Section 12 of PWDVA at Rs.1000/-
- On Appeal under Section 29 of PWDVA, this is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-, yes thirty thousand Indian rupees
- Proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act are also governed by the Cr.P.C.
- No finality has been attached to the order passed under Section 29.
Ismile @ Shama Vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 September, 2016
In this judgment from Allahabad High court, maintenance for knife is denied on the ground that she is able to maintain herself as she is earning more than 2200/-per month but allowed for the minor child, even when the husband and knife are divorced.
Ismile @ Shama Vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 September, 2016
Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014
This Allahabad High Court judgment also clarifies established below legal point in Maintenance case under section 125 of CrPC.
Smt.Kiran Dhar vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014In the absence of any custom and in absence of any decree for divorce, it cannot be said that marriage between Alok Berman and Smt. Rani was dissolved, which goes to show that Alok Berman was still legally married husband of Smt. Rani, who was, admittedly, alive at the time of marriage of Smt. Krian Dhar with Alok Berman, and the marriage between them was not annulled as per law.
Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
This is a interesting judgment from Allahabad High court where the Hon’ble Judge has, in detail, elaborated the procedure of application of discharge and various allied aspects such as CrPC 239, CrPC 244, CrPC 245 and CrPC 246.
Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
Mahesh Tiwari Vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016
This is a Quash Judgment of Allahabad High Court in which it was held that an Affidavit can be considered as a evidence, in regards to a Perjury petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for an offense punishable under Section 193 IPC.
The salient features of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC are:-
(i) intentionally making a false statement, or
(ii) declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation to speak the truth.
But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation but how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of justice.
Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of offence under Section 191 IPC. It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading.
An affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence applies to the affidavits.
Mahesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016
Read Baban Singh and another vs. Jagdish Singh and others here.
Read Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 here.
Read S.P.Kohli (Dr.) vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1753 here.
Read Asgar Ali Mulla Ibrahimji vs. Emperor AIR 1943 Nag 17(18) here.
Read Emperor vs. Padam Singh AIR 1930 All 490 here.
Read Parag Dutt vs Emperor AIR 1930 Oudh 62 (63) here.