10 Important Judgement of Allahabad High Court in 2023

December 29, 2023 4:32 PM

Here are some of the important judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 2023:

1. Vivek Kumar Maurya vs. State Of U.P.: The Court observed that genuine cases of sexual offences are now an exception, noting that women have the “upper hand” in the protection of the law and may easily succeed in implicating a man in such cases.

In a significant court ruling, Justice Siddharth of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Vivek Kumar Maurya in Case Crime, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506, 354, 354-A IPC, and 3/4 POCSO Act, at Police Station Sarnath, Varanasi. The case involved allegations of abduction, rape, and various sexual offenses against a minor girl.

2. Saloni Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P.: The Court held that a person below 18 years of age cannot be in a live-in relationship as it’s not only immoral but also illegal.

Allahabad High Court dismissed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition filed by Smt. Saloni Yadav and another individual, seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) dated April 30, 2023. The FIR was registered as Case Crime under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at P.S. Pipari, District Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Azad Ahmad Khan vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: The Court ruled that exemptions cannot be claimed from paying estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 if the waqif has reserved the right to amend the waqf deed.

4. Vijay Pal Prajapati vs. State Of U.P.: The Court observed that mere non-payment of money under a contract is not grounds for criminal prosecution or for rejection of anticipatory bail.

In this case, FIR was registered against four persons, alleging that the co-accused Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi met the informant at Mumbai and projected that he had a good understanding of mining of sand and had a sound grip on the market in Banda.

5. Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others: The Court supported the scientific survey in the Gyanvapi case, noting that it would help both plaintiffs and defendants.

In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the plea filed by the Masjid Committee challenging the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) survey of the Gyanvapi campus. The court’s verdict uphled the order of the District Court on the matter.

6. Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others: The Court emphasized the doctrine of finality in adjudication, stating that a judgment which has attained finality cannot be lightly treated by the courts.

In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a review application in the case of Dr. Arvind Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others. The case revolved around the payment of non-practicing allowances to medical officers and the implementation of an order dated 12.02.2013.

7. Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others: The Court held that courts should not interfere with transfer orders as they are administrative in nature and inherent conditions of appointment.

The petitioner, represented by counsel Priyanka Srivastava and Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, contested the transfer order dated October 20, 2023, citing its alleged prejudicial nature. The petitioner, who had been transferred just three months prior, argued that the hurried decision adversely impacted his settled life in Agra. Notably, the petitioner claimed to suffer from a heart condition, urging a transfer to Prayagraj or a nearby location.

8. Deepti Singh v. State Of U.P.: The Court ruled that the mere adoption of government service rules by autonomous bodies does not confer the same rights on the employees of the autonomous body as those available to government employees.

In this case, while working as an Assistant Teacher at Bahraich, the petitioner applied for her inter-district transfer from District- Bahraich to District- Unnao.

Despite the petitioner having been found eligible for being transferred and despite her joining at Unnao subsequently, through an order the transfer of the petitioner has not been found to be in accordance with law and therefore, the petitioner has been required to join at her initial place of posting i.e Bahraich.

9. Smt. Pallavi Saxena And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 21 November, 2023 (Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC:220694-DB)

The Allahabad High Court invoked the doctrine of ‘Parens Patriae’ to appoint petitioner-wife as the guardian of her husband who is in permanent vegetative state, to meet the ends of justice.

A bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held

“Mental incompetency is listed as an exceptional circumstance which would justify the exercise of this jurisdiction. If the Court is satisfied that the person concerned is in a vegetative state, then surely “parens patriae” jurisdiction can be exercised.”

Click to Read Full Judgment

10. Amandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. … on 19 December, 2023

The Allahabad High Court Ruled that no one including any litigant or a lawyer, can carry any arms in the Court premises and that succeeding in law profession certainly does not require support of the barrel of a gun.