Based on Sharad Birdhichand here and many other judgments, Allahabad High Court has set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Gyan Singh Shakya Vs State of UP on 08 Mar 2021Category: High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification
Preeti Vs Sandeep Asthana on 6 Sep 2017
After discussion the law around converting one petition into one with different pleadings/prayers under Rule 17 of Order VI of the C.P.C., the division bench of Allahabad High Court held that under this rule, Court has power to allow amendment petitions to avoid multiplicity of suits, to do the substantial justice to parties.
Preeti Vs Sandeep Asthana on 6 Sep 2017Citations : [2017 ADJ 10 232], [2017 ALLWC 5 4646], [2017 ALR 125 133], [2017 ALR 125 397], [2017 ARC 3 853]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66510547/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96b4964653d0536457f983
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/smt-preeti-vs-sandeep-asthana
https://www.legitquest.com/case/preeti-v-sandeep-asthana/1A8067
Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. on 21 Jan 2021
Based on Arnesh Kumar and Manav Adhikar, Allahabad High Court discussed the meaning and import of Sec 41A of CrPC and passed directions not to arrest accused automatically in 498A IPC cases.
Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. on 21 Jan 2021Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pained-unnecessary-arrest-allahabad-high-court-comply-with-section-41-crpc
https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTYwNQ==/Guidelines-directing-strict-compliance-with-Section-41-CrPC-issued-by-Allahabad-High-Court
https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/while-explaining-amended-meaning-of-section-41-cr-p-c-high-court-passes-several-direction-to-stop-the-routinely-and-arbitrary-arrests-read-order/
Anshu Goel and Anr Vs State of U.P and Anr on 16 Apr 2020
Single-judge bench said that,
From Paras 64, 65 and 66
Anshu Goel and Anr Vs State of U.P and Anr on 16 Apr 202064. If anyone is involved in the most heinous social evil of dowry, I have no manner of doubt that law must be allowed to take it course with full swing and there should not be any sympathy, compassion or leniency for such person who is indulged in such crime but only on whims and caprice someone who is not accused of any such offence, should not be implicated and undergo an ordeal criminal trial merely for the reason that he or she is relative of the husband and every relative of the husband should be made to teach a lesson. After all, performance of marriage by itself is no offence and if any one is relative of one of the spouse who is alleged to be a guilty of offence of dowry, mere relationship should not be a reason to implicate such person in a criminal proceedings.
65. Hon’ble S.S. Nijjar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Lakhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), dealing with slightly a similar matter and observed that it is generally seen that when any marriage goes in rough weather the tendency of bride is to insinuate as many members of the family of her husband as possible with the allegation of laying demand for dowry and also treating her with cruelty when their demand for dowry is not being fulfilled. Allegations of misappropriation of dowry are also made some times against those members of the family of the husband who do not have anything with the dowry which is the basic concern of the bride and bridegroom and at best parents of the bridegroom. If there is no entrustment of any article of dowry to anyone and the ingredients of definition of dowry under Section 2 of Act, 1961 are not satisfied, offence of Section 3/4 of Act, 1961 will also not be attracted.
66. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that offences under Section 3/4 of Act, 1961 against applicants are made out and, in my view, proceedings, if allowed against applicants will be nothing except but a gross abuse of process of law and ends of justice required that the same must be quashed against applicants.
Citations:
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107623815/
Kamlesh Kumar Vs Girish Kapoor and Anr on 12 Apr 1984
One of the earliest judgments on Stay proceedings in a Revision at Sessions Court.
From Paras 6 and 7,
6. The above order was passed in revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Obviously that jurisdiction was exercised Under Section 397, Cr.P.C. Under its provisions the Sessions Judge could pass an interlocutory order by directing “that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended….” It is, therefore, clear that in a revision, the Sessions Judge could, during the pendency of the revision, suspend either sentence or order against which the revision has been filed. In the present case there is no question of any sentence. There was only the order in question against which revision was filed. At best the said order could only be suspended during the pendency of the revision.
7. The question of suspending the order would only arise if it was still to be executed. If the order had already come into operation, there remained nothing to be suspended. In the present case it is undisputed fact that in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate, applicant Kamlesh Kumar had already executed the necessary bonds on the same date and had taken delivery of the said print of the film ‘Naseeb’. Accordingly there remained nothing which could be suspended.
Casemine Version:
Kamlesh Kumar Vs Girish Kapoor and Anr on 12 Apr 1984Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179659/
https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/473801/kamlesh-kumar-vs-girish-kapoor-anr
Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Anr Vs State of UP and 4 Ors on 16 Dec 2014
Based on the landmark judgment from Supreme Court is here, Allahabad High Court held against the Love Jihad marriages in India.
Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Anr Vs State of UP and 4 Ors on 16 Dec 2014Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22354729/
Many such Love Jihad marriages are listed here, for awareness purpose, as nothing can be done to such legally major ladies.
Saumitra Anand and Ors Vs Registrar General High Court of Allahabad and Ors on 27 Jul 2020
Again a fundamental rule to be followed who are seeking a writ of Mandamus from a High Court. First seek justice for the Concerned authority against whom the Writ is being prayed for. Once that stage is exhausted (successfully or otherwise), the litigant is good for filing the writ of mandamus.
Saumitra Anand and 4 Ors Vs Registrar General High Court of Allahabad and 2 Ors on 27 Jul 2020AP HC also held so in the case here.
Manish Kumar Mishra Vs. Union Of India and 4 Ors on 01 May 2020
The 3-judge bench of Allahabad High Court held right the decision made in Nawal Kishore Sharma here.
Manish Kumar Mishra Vs. Union Of India And 4 Ors on 01 May 2020Citations: [2]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172265121/
Afzal Ansari and 2 Ors Vs State Of U.P. and 2 Ors on 15 May 2020
Allahabad High Court has held that,
From Para 39,
Afzal Ansari and 2 Ors Vs State Of U.P. and 2 Ors on 15 May 202039. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Azan can be recited by Muezzin from minarets of the Mosques by human voice without using any amplifying device and the administration is directed not to cause hindrance in the same on the pretext of the Guidelines to contain the pandemic Covid19, unless such guidelines are being violated.
Citations: []
Other Source links:
Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016
3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,
“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”
Safeguards
Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.
Earlier Reference Order
Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 02 December 2015Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
