Court : Allahabad Lucknow
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate and perused the record. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) to quash the order dated 12.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi. (ii) to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.360 of 2014, "State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kejriwal" in pursuance of the Charge Sheet No.122 of 2014 dated 09.07.2014 in Case Crime No.608 of 2014, under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Police Station-Kotwali Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, District-Amethi, during pendency of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The issue On 7 November 2012, a Division Bench referred the following question of law for resolution by the Full Bench: "Whether a temporary police constable appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act 1861 (Police Act), who has not been placed on probation, can be terminated from service in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (Police Regulation) or whether the procedure provided under Para 541 of the Police Regulations dealing with the constables on probation shall be applicable" The issue before the Full Bench, turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of the Police Act and of the Police Regulations. The issue is whether a person, who has been appointed as a police constable on a temporary basis, is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 541 of the Police Regulations. The constables who are before this Court, contend that the services of a person who is appointed on a temporary basis, can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Ajai Lamba, J. 1. I had the privilege of going through the judgment prepared by Hon'ble Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Hon'ble Justice A.P.Sahi. 2. I fully agree with the answers given by my brother Justice A.P.Sahi to issues (A),(B),(C),(D),(E),(G) and (H), as encased in the judgment. 3. With all humility, however, I differ on the answer recorded in context of Issue (F). I would like to record my separate reasons and findings on the issue. 4. For ready reference, Issue (F) reads as under: "The status of final judgment unsigned by one of the Judges of the Bench and the conflict of opinion and its reference by Hon'ble the Chief Justice." 5. The issue has been framed in context of Questions 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18, as they are related. Before making an endeavour to address the issue, the sequence of events is required to be reiterated in brief. 6. The relevant facts to be noted in this context are that the Bench constituted of Hon'ble Justice Amar Saran and Hon'ble Justice Shri Narayan S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. The reference to the Full Bench The reference to the Full Bench has been occasioned upon two orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court. By the first of those orders, the following question was referred for consideration: "Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is an interlocutory order and the remedy of a revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397." Subsequently, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while noticing the above reference, referred two additional questions for consideration by a larger Bench: "(1) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under Section 397; and (2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N.K. Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava appearing for the respondent-bank. The facts briefly is, that, the petitioner was appointed, Class-IV attender with the respondent-bank in 1981, thereafter, in 1982 he was confirmed. The petitioner was advanced housing loan of Rs. 75,000/- in 1988 and as per the housing scheme, applicable to the employees, the petitioner was required to repay the loan in 24 years, monthly installment being of Rs. 357.15 paisa, to be deducted from his salary. The petitioner purchased the plot/house on 26.4.1988 at Aliganj Housing Scheme, and executed an agreement with the bank undertaking to create equitable mortgage and not to sell, mortgage, alienate or create any charge, without the written permission from the bank. On 24.8.1990 the property purchased, under the housing loan scheme, was sold by the petitioner to one Smt. Shireen Rahman for Rs. 1,25,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Haseen Siddiqui @ Jahangir for issuing a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the administrative order dated 22.4.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Lucknow as well as order dated 15.7.2013. 2. Heard Mr. R. P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA. 3. It has been mentioned in the memo of petition that trial of the case was going on in the said court after petitioners arrest on 29.11.2012 by A.T.S. U.P. Lucknow till 17.5.2013 when Learned A.C.J.M. VIII ordered for holding the trial of the petitioner's case in jail premises instead of its regular sitting at Civil Court, Lucknow. This order was passed in compliance to the Administrative Order of Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 24.4.2013. Order passed by Learned ACJM VIII was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.313/13 but in vain and petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. also met the same fate. This Hon'ble Court while disposing of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Narayan Shukla, J. Heard Mr.Girish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. Since both the cases are based on common facts, they are decided by the following common order. Criminal Misc. Case No.290 of 2012 Through the instant application the applicants have prayed to quash the entire proceedings of case No.11032 of 2010:State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Goswami and others, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Lucknow, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 406, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow as also to set aside the judgment and order dated 16th of January, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. By means of order dated 16th of January, 2012, the applicant's objection against the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has been rejected. The applicants have...
Tag this Judgment!