Latest news with #StateofUP
News18
01-07-2025
- News18
Live-In Relationships Go Against Women's Interest, Says Allahabad HC
The court said the reality is that a man can easily marry after a live-in-relationship, but it is difficult for the woman to find a life partner after a breakup The Allahabad High Court recently remarked that although the concept of live-in relationships has been legalised by the Apex court, the ground reality in Indian middle-class society remains starkly different, with such relationships often clashing with settled societal norms and disproportionately harming women. The court stated it was 'fed up" with such cases repeatedly coming before it, noting that while the younger generation may be attracted to live-in relationships, their 'after-affects" are now routinely playing out before the courts. 'A man can marry, even after a live-in-relationship, a woman or a number of women, but it is difficult for the woman to find a life partner after a breakup," Justice Siddharth observed. The court was hearing a bail application filed by one Shane Alam, who was booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act for allegedly engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman after promising to marry her. According to the prosecution, the woman had accompanied Alam to multiple locations during the course of their relationship, but he later reneged on the promise of marriage. The court, while considering Alam's bail application, noted that he had been in custody since February 22, 2025, and had no prior criminal record. Opposing the bail, the counsel for the informant argued that the act had destroyed the future prospects of the woman, who now faced social stigma and difficulty in finding a life partner. Justice Siddharth, while dealing with the case at hand, took a broader view of the societal implications of such cases. 'After live-in-relationship was legalised by the Apex court, the court had fed up such cases. These cases are coming to the court because the concept of live-in relationship is against the settled law in the Indian middle-class society," the judge observed. He further noted the gendered consequences of such relationships. He added that while live-in relationships may appeal to the younger generation, their aftermath is evident in cases like the present one. However, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, among other factors and citing constitutional protections under Article 21 and precedents such as Dataram Singh v. State of UP and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court concluded that Alam had made out a case for bail, especially in light of prison overcrowding. Accordingly, the bail was granted on strict conditions, including that the accused shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, must appear before the trial court on key dates, and cooperate with the trial proceedings.
Hindustan Times
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
No coercive action against Moradabad MP till August 6: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad high court has directed police to not take any coercive action against Samajwadi Party MP from Moradabad Ruchi Vira till August 6— the next date of hearing in the violation of the 2024 model code of conduct case. The state government's counsel opposed the petition but could not dispute the arguments raised by the applicant's counsel. (For Representation) Justice Samit Gopal passed the order on June 25 (Wednesday) in a petition filed by the MP who had been booked for violation of the model code of conduct for addressing a gathering at a house 'without prior permission' during the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign. The FIR was lodged under section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 171-H (illegal payments in connection with an election) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Earlier, the counsel for the applicant produced before the court an order dated August 22, 2024 passed in Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of UP and another and submitted that the question in the present matter is identical to that of the matters in which interim order had been passed. It was submitted that the present case be also tagged with the earlier cases and be heard and interim protection be granted. The state government's counsel opposed the petition but could not dispute the arguments raised by the applicant's counsel. The court on this said, 'In view of the same, connect with Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 26365 of 2024 (Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another).'' 'Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants Smt. Ruchi Vira and Shri Umakant Gupta in Case No. 8928 of 2025 (State Vs. Smt. Ruchi Vira and another) in Case Crime No. 0319 of 2024, under Sections 188, 171-H IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/MP, MLA Court, Moradabad,' the court said.
Hindustan Times
24-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
Misuse of Gangsters Act: Allahabad HC summons Muz'nagar DM, SSP
Taking a serious note of misuse of the Gangsters Act in Muzaffarnagar, the Allahabad high court has directed the DM and the SSP of Muzaffarnagar and the concerned station house officer (SHO) to personally appear before it to explain their 'misconduct and negligence'. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed these directives on June 20. (For Representation) Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed these directives on June 20 while taking strong exception to the repeated and arbitrary invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against a man, allegedly to keep him in jail. With this, the court also granted bail to the accused Manshad alias Sona of Muzaffarnagar district in connection with a case registered under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Gangsters Act had been invoked against him on the basis of old cases that were already in existence and could have been relied upon during the previous occasion too when the Act was imposed. It was contended that this reflected a deliberate strategy to misuse the law in order to prolong his incarceration. State government counsel, however, could not explain the reason as to why the Gangsters Act was being repeatedly imposed on the basis of old cases. Finding clear arbitrariness in the matter, the court remarked that the conduct of the SHO reflected 'sheer misuse' of the Act. The court said the DM and the SSP had also failed in their statutory duty to apply their mind before approving the action, as required under Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP Gangsters Rules, 2021. 'This shows not only arbitrariness on the part of the SHO, but also sheer negligence on the part of the SSP and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, who are required to apply their minds at the time of conducting the joint meeting,' the court observed. Furthermore, stressing that such mechanical and repeated use of the Gangsters Act violates both judicial directions and recent guidelines issued by the state in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Gorakh Nath Mishra vs State of UP, the court summoned the concerned officials on the next date of listing on July 7 to explain their misconduct and negligence.
The Print
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
The single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while respectfully disagreeing with the seven-judge bench ruling, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench invoking the spirit of 'judicial discipline' and the need to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others (1989) had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution. Prayagraj, May 28 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has referred to a nine-judge bench legal questions concerning the high court's power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found the seven-judge bench ruling 'obsolete' in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & others vs Bhajan Lal & others (1990) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (2021). 'This court respectfully acknowledges that the 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. 'Nevertheless, in the spirit of judicial discipline and to uphold the doctrine of stare decisis as emphasised in the cases of Shanker Raju and Mishri Lal, the court is inclined to refer this matter to a larger bench comprising nine judges,' Justice Deshwal noted in its 43-page order passed on May 27. The court added that this referral was necessary as the judgement in Ramlal Yadav, which though not explicitly reversed or overruled but had become 'obsolete', was rendered by a bench of seven judges. The court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 528 of BNSS (inherent powers of high court) challenging the order passed by CJM, Chitrakoot, under section 175(3) of BNSS (Section 156 (3) CrPC) by which the police were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners also sought quashing of the FIR under section 498A (harassment), 323, 504, 506, 342 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The additional government advocate raised a preliminary objection that in view of the full bench judgement in the case of Ramlal Yadav, the instant plea (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) for quashing the FIR is not maintainable as the same could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the single judge noted that in the judgement of Bhajan Lal, the apex court considered almost all the judgements considered by the full bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and had expanded the scope of interference by the high court during the investigation, he deemed it appropriate to refer the above-mentioned questions to a nine-judge bench. The court noted that in the exercise of its power under section 482 CrPC, the high court can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure. In this regard, the court also referred to the apex court's recent judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat (2025), wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule preventing a high court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under section 482 of CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage. PTI COR RAJ KVK KVK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Deccan Herald
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Can FIR be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS? Allahabad HC refers matter to 9-judge bench
A seven-judge bench in the case of Ramlal Yadav and others vs State of UP and others (1989) had held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC would not be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution.
