Created by Fuzzy Cloud

LegalDesk AI Logo Legal Desk AI

Judgments of 2026

15781 judgments · newest first · showing 6201–6400

RITIKversusSTATE OF U.P.

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits

Ritik was arrested in connection with a stabbing that led to the death of Mukesh after a month, and is charged under several IPC sections (103, 351(2), 61(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) BNS) and the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, has no prior criminal record, and has been in custody …

YOGENDRA PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The revisionist filed a criminal revision under the BNSS challenging the trial court's order rejecting a Section 319 CrPC application to summon two alleged participants, Tej Bahadur Singh and Vijayshri, in a dowry‑death case. The FIR alleged that the victim, Sarika, was subjected to dowry harassment …

PRADUMMAN KUMAR ALIAS PRADUMNversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pradumman Kumar, who was arrested in Crime No. 626 of 2025 under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 67 of the Income Tax Act, alleged to have committed rape. The applicant claimed false implication, asserted that the victim, a …

WASI AHMAD AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, asserting that they had amicably settled the dispute and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 19‑05‑2026. The State and the second opposite party did not contest the settlement. The High …

SAJANversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sajan, accused in Crime No. 342 of 2025 under Sections 64, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., alleging false implication and lack of incriminating material. The victim, a pregnant woman, had given statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. …

VIVEKversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of Vivek, who is accused in Crime No. 384 of 2025 for offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the same Act and the Arms Act for allegedly participating in an assault by …

RAKSH PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. FOOD and CIVIL SUPPLIES and ORS.

Disposed off/Decided on merits

The petitioner, Raksh Pal Singh, filed a writ petition (Writ‑A No. 18010 of 2021) before the Allahabad High Court. No petitioner or his counsel appeared to prosecute the petition, while counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh was present. The Court noted the absence of the petitioner and, after …

RAMKAILASH YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Ramkailash Yadav and another filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of U.P. and another. The court examined whether the application was sufficiently pressed. It held that the application was not pressed and therefore …

BHANU DATTA PATHAKversusHARDUTTA PATHAK AND OTHERS

The plaintiff‑appellant Bhanu Datta Pathak sought to cancel a registered will dated 06‑12‑1971 executed by his grandfather Shankar Dutt Pathak in favour of the defendant‑respondent Hari Dutt Pathak and to obtain a partition of ancestral property. The trial court held the will invalid on grounds of …

RAM SARANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Ram Saran filed a criminal appeal (No. 1497 of 1984) against the State of U.P. in the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared for the appellant, and the respondent's counsel was present. The court was informed, via an office report and a detailed report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, …

KHELAWAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE

The appellant Ramapati appealed against his conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution’s case rested on a single eye‑witness who, during cross‑examination, admitted he was not present at the start of the incident and …

RAM AUTARversusSTATE

Ram Autar appealed a criminal conviction, but before the appeal could be heard he died, as reported in an office note dated 08‑07‑2026. The State, represented by the Advocate General, appeared before the court. The sole appellant's death raised the question of whether the appeal could continue. The …

SHIV PAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

The appeal concerned the conviction of seven accused under IPC sections 147, 148, 304 and 149 for the fatal assault of Bankey Lal during a land‑dispute. The prosecution proved that the accused, armed with lathis and a sickle, assaulted the deceased, causing multiple injuries corroborated by medical …

RAKESH CHANDversusSTATE

The appellant Rakesh Chandra was convicted by the Sessions Court for attempting murder under Section 307 IPC after allegedly shooting the victim Harnath during a theft of a pea crop. The prosecution relied on the complainant’s written report, eyewitness testimony of the injured and the complainant, …

SHEO POOJAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE

The case arose from a 1980 land dispute in Deoria district where the accused, armed with lathis and a pistol, assaulted the complainant and his companions, resulting in injuries and the recovery of a firearm. The trial court convicted all ten accused on various offences under the IPC and the Arms …

SMT.MUNNI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE

The appellant, Smt. Munni, filed a criminal appeal (No. 327 of 1990) before the Allahabad High Court. An office report dated 07‑09‑2026 indicated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, had recorded the death of appellant No.1 on 16‑10‑2024. The court considered whether the appeal could …

PAPPU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

The appeal filed by Pappu and another against the State of U.P. was pending before the Allahabad High Court. The first appellant, Pappu, had his appeal abated earlier. No counsel appeared for the second appellant, also named Pappu. A report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, dated …

SHANKER AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

An appeal was filed by Shanker and others against the State of U.P. The appeal of appellant No.2 had already been abated. No counsel appeared for appellants No.1 and No.3. A report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur dated 05‑09‑2026 confirmed that appellants No.1 (Shanker) and No.3 …

JITENDRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Jitendra and another, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Allahabad High Court. Their counsel, Ram Ashish Pandey, subsequently expressed the intention to withdraw the application. The Court, after noting the withdrawal request, dismissed …

NITESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. seeking the case diary of Criminal Case No. 913 of 2025 to examine the alleged illegal alteration of the FIR from Section 310 (loot with hurt) to a lesser offence of simple hurt. The charge‑sheet, however, was filed only under …

WAHID ALI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court of Allahabad considered Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 1984 filed by five appellants against the State of U.P. Earlier, the appeal had been partially abated for four appellants due to various orders. No counsel appeared for the fifth appellant, Ram Kumar. The State filed a compliance …

UDAI SINGHversusRAJENDRA SINGH

The petitioners, Udai Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared for either party when the matter was called. The court noted the absence of prosecution of the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition …

YOGESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Yogesh and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail. Their counsel, Shubham Yadav, informed the court that he did not wish to press the application and requested its dismissal, while seeking liberty to file a fresh application later. …

ABDUL JABBARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court. The petition sought relief against the State of U.P. and three other respondents. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Agresh Agrawal, informed the court that the petition …

RAJESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Petitioner Rajesh and another filed a petition under Article 227 before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous. The court considered the submission and found no merit to proceed. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as …

LALLU RAMversusSHIV KUMARI DEVI

Lallu Ram appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging a Family Court order that set aside an ex‑parte divorce decree dated 17‑12‑1990. The decree had been obtained after the respondent, Shiv Kumari Devi, failed to appear despite service of summons deemed sufficient. The …

AJAY PRAKASH TRIPATHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Ajay Prakash Tripathi and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the applicants, while counsel for the State of U.P. was present. The Court dismissed the application in …

PARANVEER AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The revisionists filed a criminal revision against the Additional Session Judge’s order rejecting their discharge application in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 149, 302/34, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The petitioners did not wish to contest the merits and instead requested liberty to …

RAVINDRA PAL SINGHversusUP - ZILADHAIKARI MAWANA AND ANOTHER

The petitioner, a Lekhpal appointed in 1985, was transferred to a new posting on 30‑09‑1997. Shortly thereafter, a preliminary inquiry alleged that forged entries had been made in revenue records prior to his joining, and he was suspended and later terminated on 26‑03‑1998. The petitioner contended …

TAHIR ABBASI AND 10 ORSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 8189 of 2019) by Tahir Abbasi and ten others against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The application had been pending since 2019, and no counsel appeared for either party, although the Attorney General …

KANHAIYA LAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Kanhaiya Lal Singh applied for bail in a NDPS case (Crime No.744 of 2025) alleging innocence and claiming no inventory under Section 52-A, while the main accused Vinod Kumar had already been released on bail. The State opposed, presenting a forensic report that 195 kg of ganja was recovered from a …

RAM SAHAYversusSTATE OF UP AND 6 OTHERS

The High Court considered an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 9633 of 2019) by Ram Sahay against the State of Uttar Pradesh and six others. The application had been pending since 2019, and no counsel for either party appeared before the court, although the …

SANTOSH PAL SINGHversusRAJU AND 9 OTHERS

The petitioners, led by counsel Rahul Sahai, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the respondents. The petition was listed but the petitioner failed to appear before the court despite a revised call. The respondents, …

MANJU SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The writ petition filed by Manju Singh against the State of U.P. and others was listed for hearing but the petitioner’s counsel did not appear. The case was categorized as likely to have become infructuous due to the passage of time since its filing in 2015. A notice required parties to indicate …

DEEPAK SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Deepak Shukla, detained since 20 November 2023 in connection with a 2020 case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, filed a second bail application after an earlier denial. No charge had been framed and a request for a separate trial remained pending, prompting the counsel to invoke …

AZIMUL ISLAMversusEXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHARDA SAHAYAK KHAND-39 GOVINDPUR ALLD.

The petitioner, Azimul Islam, was appointed as a Seenchpal in the Irrigation Department after completing a three‑month apprenticeship and being placed on a select list prepared on 8 January 1996 under Rule 13 of the Irrigation Department Patraul Service Rules, 1953. He was subsequently terminated on …

VIJAY @ VIJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging the conduct of the U.P. Upper Sub‑ordinate Services Preliminary Examination and the Returning Officer Preliminary Examination held on 8 April 2018 and 24 June 2018. An interim order allowed the petitioner to appear in the examinations …

SMT. ANISA KHAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioners, Smt. Anisa Khan and another, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 11402 of 2019) before the Allahabad High Court. The application remained pending for several years without any appearance by the petitioners, even after a revised call. The court …

AKHILESH KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellants, Akhilesh Kumar and his wife, appealed against a charge-sheet and summoning order in a case under the SC/ST Act and several IPC provisions. They argued that they were falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute and that the FIR, victim's statement, and investigation report contain no …

MOHD ALIM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 76 of 2025) that involved offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both parties appeared before the civil court, …

PRATIK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Pratik Kumar filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 12,000 to one party and Rs 5,000 to another, totaling Rs 17,000 per month. He argued that the trial court failed to consider his financial situation and the existing maintenance …

MOHIT SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Petitioner Mohit Singh filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner's counsel, Prem Shankar Sharma, informed the court that the petition had become infructuous. The court, after noting this statement, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. No substantive merits of the …

INDU DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

The petitioner, Indu Devi, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Tehsildar of Gyanpur to mutate a revenue order dated 24-10-2024 and restore her name in the khatauni for a specific plot of land. The petition relied on Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, alleging that the …

SMT. AMRIKANversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Smt. Amrikan, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. During the hearing, counsel for the applicant expressed a desire to withdraw the application. The State of U.P., represented by the Additional …

SMT NATTHO DEVIversusSTATE OF UP AND 7 OTHERS

The petitioner, Smt Nattho Devi, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 20‑06‑2022 that directed the repair of a drainage obstruction in a village. The petition was filed more than four years after the order, after an execution proceeding was initiated by the …

INDRA PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The appellant, Indra Pal, filed a criminal appeal (No. 3343 of 2022) before the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, a report dated 6 April 2025 from the Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Agra, confirmed that Indra Pal died while receiving treatment at S.N. Medical College …

RAJESH MAHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajesh Mahra, who was arrested under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The applicant claimed innocence, alleged that the recovery was a sham, and argued that the mandatory provisions of …

NARESH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash charge sheet No. 29/2025 and related proceedings in a dowry‑related case. They claimed that the dispute with the second opposite party had been amicably settled and that the latter wished to withdraw the …

MOHIT KUMAR VASANEY AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

The Allahabad High Court entertained an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Mohit Kumar Vasaney and four relatives seeking to quash a criminal complaint (No. 577 of 2017) filed by Neha Vashaney under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of …

JITENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioner, Jitendra Singh, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court. The petition was listed in the revised list but no further action was taken to advance the proceedings. The learned Additional Government Advocate was present, indicating the …

RAMESHWAR SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The revisionists challenged the Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting their discharge application in a case involving offences under Sections 409, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. They argued that the magistrate failed to consider the entire material, that the FIR was frivolous, and that the essential …

GOVIND SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioner, Govind Singh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner's counsel, Manish Kumar Pandey, was unable to contact his client and indicated that the grievance might have been resolved. Consequently, the petitioner did not appear before the court and no …

VINDHYACHAL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioner, Vindhyachal Yadav, filed a writ petition (Writ‑A No. 10551 of 2019) in the Allahabad High Court. The petition remained pending since 2019 and the petitioner’s counsel did not appear for the hearing. The case was listed as potentially infructuous under the court’s notice for old …

HITLER SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 25.01.2023 and the cognizance order dated 01.03.2023 in a criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli. The application was supported by counsel but no …

CHANDAN KUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chandan Kumar Mishra, who was not named in the FIR but was implicated through a co-accused's confessional statement in a case under IPC sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2). The applicant argued innocence, lack of substantive evidence, and …

RAM TAULversusSTATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioner, Ram Taul, filed a writ petition (Writ‑A No. 11863 of 2020) before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of Uttar Pradesh and four others. The petition was listed but the petitioner’s counsel did not appear, nor was the case marked to show that the cause of action …

CHHABI LAL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Chhabi Lal Yadav, a contract District Consultant for the Swachh Bharat Mission, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal case (Crime No. 539 of 2019) filed against him under IPC sections 419, 420 and 409. He alleged that the embezzlement charges …

SMT NIRMALA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellants, Nirmala Singh and her husband, appealed against a summoning order dated 01‑06‑2022 issued by a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act in a case arising from an alleged assault and caste‑based abuse of a school watchman, Phool Chand. The FIR alleged assault but the medical report showed no …

SMT. SANDHYA JAISWAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and to provide them protection. They submitted proof of age and asserted that they had married of their own free will, but faced threats from the private …

SMT. NANDANI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, adult individuals who have voluntarily married, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents and family members from interfering with their peaceful married life and to obtain police protection. They alleged threats to their safety and claimed that any interference could …

NEHA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, a wife and her father‑in‑law, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (including a charge‑sheet and cognizance order) filed under Sections 392, 504 and 506 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. They contended that …

MUNSHI RAM AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them and to be allowed to appear through counsel before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Moradabad. The court examined the material and found that the …

SUKHRAM AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

The appellants Sukhram, Aushan Singh and Jeet Raj were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the death of Veerpal Singh. The High Court examined the prosecution’s case, which relied mainly on the testimony of two relatives of the deceased and lacked any forensic linkage …

JAI SINGH YADAV AND 78 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioners, Jai Singh Yadav and 78 others, filed Writ-C No. 30597 of 2018 before the Allahabad High Court against the State of U.P. and two others. The petition was heard by the Chief Justice's Court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Arun Kumar. Counsel for the petitioners was …

FAZAL @ BHOLA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicants, Fazal @ Bhola and Rizwan, were arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 1103 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 109, 351(3) and 324(4) of the Indian Penal Code. They claimed they were falsely implicated, that the injuries to the alleged …

SMT. SHARAD AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Petitioners Smt. Sharad and two others filed Writ‑A No. 19362 of 2018 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the actions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and five other respondents. The petition was argued by counsel B.S. Pandey for the petitioners and by Ashok Kumar Singh, Awadhesh Kumar and …

RAJKUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Teachers in two grant‑in‑aid junior high schools in Basti, claimed salary arrears from December 2006, relying on their appointments under the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) Rules, 1978 and an exemption‑from‑training certificate …

JAIVEER KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

The petition filed by Jaiveer Kumar in 2011 before the Allahabad High Court remained unattended as neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the case marked to show that the cause of action survived. The court noted that the matter was listed among writs likely to have become infructuous due …

GOVING SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 ORS.

The petitioner, Goving Singh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of Uttar Pradesh and four other respondents. The petition was listed peremptorily, and the petitioner’s counsel, Manish Kumar Pandey, requested an adjournment on a previous occasion. …

MOHAMMAD FARHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohammad Farhan, who had been in custody for about seven months for offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that his right to liberty under Article 21 was being …

SATNAM SINGH @ SATTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Satnam Singh @ Satta filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 17‑09‑2024 and the ensuing criminal proceedings (Case No. 3529/2025) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The High Court examined the material …

SANJAY KUMAR RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Sanjay Kumar Rai filed a writ petition (Writ‑A No. 67871 of 2010) before the Allahabad High Court challenging actions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The petition was listed but no further pleadings or evidence were filed, and the parties did not appear. The court noted that the petition …

RISHAL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The revisionist Rishal Kumar filed a criminal revision seeking to set aside an order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bareilly, in a maintenance case. The revisionist indicated that the matter could be resolved within three months and did not wish to press the …

SMT SANTOSHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Smt Santosh, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman who died from burn injuries, applied for bail in a case under Sections 85, 103 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the family, including the applicant, harassed the deceased to obtain a loan and that an …

MADHU OMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioner filed a writ petition (Writ‑A No. 32262 of 2015) in the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of U.P. and two others. The case remained pending for several years without any appearance by the petitioner’s counsel. The court listed the matter as likely to have become …

DHANANJAY MISHRA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Dhananjay Mishra and others seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, charge sheet and cognizance in State vs Shashi Prakash and others. The court examined the material and concluded that the facts on …

GOPI AND 5 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioners filed a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 57770 of 2013) before the Allahabad High Court. They failed to appear on three scheduled dates (16‑03‑2026, 07‑04‑2026 and the date of hearing). The respondents argued that similar petitions had been dismissed for delay and laches, attaching relevant …

DEEP SINGH CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Deep Singh Charitable Society and another, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, Shri Saurav Pandey, informed the court that the matter had become infructuous. The petitioners consequently requested that the petition …

REYAZ AHMAD MATHANJIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Reyaz Ahmad Mathanji, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a chargesheet dated 28‑02‑2025 and the summoning order dated 03‑04‑2025 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, in a case registered as Crime No. 0066 of 2025 under Sections 308(2) and …

PRAKASH AND 10 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Petitioners Prakash and ten others filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petition was listed but no further steps were taken by the petitioners to prosecute the matter. The learned Additional …

VANSH PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Vansh Pratap Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings in a criminal case arising from FIR allegations under IPC sections 191(2), 115(2) and 352. The applicant argued that the FIR was based on false …

M/S TULSYAN COAL COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

M/s Tulsyan Coal Company filed a writ petition against the State of U.P. and others. The petition was listed under “Old Pending Cases for Priority Hearing” for the year 2008. When the case was called in the revised list, the petitioner’s counsel, Anand Tewari, was not present. The court therefore …

PAWAN KUMAR YADAV AND 25 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 22 OTHERS

The petitioners, a group of 26 basic education employees, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a communication dated 18‑11‑2025 and an order dated 21‑11‑2025 that fixed their salaries, and requested that they be granted the first increment effective from 01‑01‑2017 along with all arrears. …

MURARI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND OTHERS

The petitioners Murari and others filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging actions of the State of U.P. The petition was heard by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Arun Kumar. No substantive facts, issues, or arguments are detailed in the judgment. The Court dismissed …

LAKHMI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND OTHERS

The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking the release of land that had been earmarked for acquisition, arguing that the earlier order of 12 July 2011, which allowed them to seek compensation under the Karar Niyamawali, should not preclude an exemption from acquisition. The respondents contended …

AJAY SINGH @ RAJU GAUTAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS

The petitioner, Ajay Singh @ Raju Gautam, filed a writ petition in 2014 before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared for the petitioner on the hearing date, and the petition was not marked to indicate that the cause of action still survived. The court noted that the case had been pending for …

MERAJ @ MERAJ BANGALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Meraj Bangali, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) III/Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar (Case No. 7681 of 2026) arising from charges under IPC sections 115(2), 351(3), …

NETRALPAL SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal case (State v. Ashish & Others) and the cognizance order dated 02.02.2026. The court examined the record and observed that the dispute revolves around questions of fact and that no …

PAWAN SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court. The petition was listed but the petitioners failed to appear before the court. The respondent's counsel was present and ready to argue. The court observed that the petitioners had not …

BRIJESH KUMAR MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court direction for the respondents to remove encroachments on State Highway No. 120 in Village Dawak, Mirzapur. The High Court issued directions ordering the removal of the encroachments. The respondents later submitted instructions …

NEHA SINGH AND 90 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

The petitioners, a group of 91 basic education employees, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a communication dated 18‑11‑2025 issued by the Finance Controller and an order dated 21‑11‑2025 issued by the Director of Education, and prayed for the re‑fixation of their salaries with the first …

MOHAMMAD YAMINversusAHSAAN KHAN

A writ petition under Article 227 was listed as likely to be infructuous. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to demonstrate that the cause of action still existed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. The judgment clarified that if the cause of action persists, …

ANUP @ ANUP PRASAD AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 09.01.2026 and the cognizance order dated 20.02.2026 in Criminal Case No. 491 of 2026, which arose from offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 333 of the Indian Penal …

AAMIR ASRAR @ AKKU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellants challenged the cognizance and summoning order dated 27‑02‑2023 issued by the Special Judge under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that the FIR was lodged 42 days after the incident, the investigation was …

SMT SUNITA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Smt. Sunita Devi, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. Act seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 951/2026) and the related charge sheet and cognizance order. The High Court examined the material and observed that the dispute centered on questions …

SMT. POONAM AND 5 ORS.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS.

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their motor accident claim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had rejected their petition on the basis of a delayed FIR and the unreliability of an alleged eyewitness, PW‑2 Ram Kumar. The deceased, Devendra Kumar, was killed in a road accident on …

VISHESH GARG AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a Sessions Court judgment dated 11‑12‑2025 and a Chief Judicial Magistrate order dated 06‑05‑2025 relating to offences under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The High Court examined the material …

SABANA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Sabana and another, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite the listing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. The interim order that had been granted earlier was vacated. No …

MOMIN @ CHHOTUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Momin @ Chhotu filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS before the Allahabad High Court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the application had become infructuous and should be dismissed. The counsel for the second opposite party raised no objection to this submission. The court, after …

PEERA PRADHAN @ MATLOOB ALI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Peera Pradhan and another seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 18‑04‑2023 and the cognizance order dated 11‑07‑2024 in a criminal case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The court examined the material …

HASIM ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Hasim Ali, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 24‑07‑2022 and the related criminal proceedings (Case No. 3060 of 2025) arising from offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. The High Court examined …

HRIDAY NARAYAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 16‑01‑2023 in Crime No. 578 of 2022, which alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. The High Court examined the material and observed that the dispute …

TANVIR KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Tanvir Khan, was detained since 1 January 2024 in connection with a cyber‑crime case (Crime No.31 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. He applied for bail during the pendency of …

HIRA MANI DEVI AND 3 OTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act seeking to quash a chargesheet and summoning order relating to offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Both parties had reached a verified compromise, with the …

BHAIRAV PRASAD PATHAKversusSTATE OF U.P.

Bhairav Prasad Pathak was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 286 of 2024) alleging offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. He had been in custody since 23 July 2024, amounting to more than two years of pre‑trial detention. The applicant contended that he was …

RAM NARESHversusSANDEEP KUMAR

The petitioner, Ram Naresh, filed a writ petition under Article 227 in the Allahabad High Court. The petition was listed as likely to be infructuous. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to demonstrate that the cause of action still existed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition …

DEVENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Devendra Kumar Solanki and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 592/2026) instituted by the State of U.P. arising out of Crime No. 123/2025 under Sections 76, 78, 115(2) and 352 of the IPC. …

DEVENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Devendra Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 709 of 2026) filed against him under IPC sections 324(4), 352 and 351(2). The High Court examined the record and observed that the material on file …

DEEPAK KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellants filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seeking to quash the Special Judge's cognizance order and the charge‑sheet filed in a case alleging assault and caste‑based slurs. The appellants argued that the …

AADITYA JAIN @ SUNNY JAINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Aaditya Jain, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Allahabad High Court. The application was listed before Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori. No representative of the applicant appeared even after the revised call, while the learned …

DEEP CHANDversusHARMIT KAUR

The petitioner, Deep Chand, filed a writ petition under Article 227 in the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue that the cause of action still existed. The court, noting the lack of representation, classified the petition as likely to be infructuous and …

GAYA PRASAD VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Gaya Prasad Vishwakarma in a case involving offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(4), 340(2) of the IPC and Section 61(2) of the CrPC. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and only mentioned in a …

SMT. KAMLA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

The petitioners, Smt. Kamla and another, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking judicial review of a lower court order. The petition was listed before the Allahabad High Court and counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vindesh Kumar, appeared. The court noted that, according to the …

AMAN @ IKRAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Aman @ Ikram, was not named in the FIR but was implicated in a criminal case (Crime No. 207 of 2025) based solely on the recovery of a mobile phone and SIM card belonging to the deceased. The recovery memo claimed videographic evidence under Section 105 of the B.N.S., but no such …

LATA DOHAREversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS

The appellant, Lata Dohare, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the Special Judge's order dated 19.01.2026 that rejected her complaint under Section 226 of the BNSS. The complaint alleged that the respondents forcibly entered her …

SHASHANK @ SHASHANK PURI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7638/2025, which involved offences under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of the IPC arising from a personal dispute. The parties had entered into a …

HIMANSHU GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Himanshu Gupta, who was arrested in a case under IPC sections 318(4), 338 and 336 BNS relating to alleged fraudulent vehicle sale and money transfer. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory, …

NIDHI SAXENAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioner, Nidhi Saxena, sought a first information report (FIR) against her brother Sushant Saxena for allegedly withdrawing Rs. 38.85 lakh from their deceased father's PPF account and refusing to share the proceeds. She filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code …

AJAY SURESH BHAI PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Ajay Suresh Bhai Patel, was detained since September 14, 2024 in connection with a case (Crime No.256 of 2023) involving alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for bail, contending that he had been in custody for about …

SMT UZMA BANO AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, a married couple, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent any interference in their peaceful married life and to obtain police protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of majority and affirmed that their marriage was consensual. The Court, relying on Supreme …

NATHIRAM RANAversusSMT. SHALINI AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER

The petitioner, Nathiram Rana, filed a writ petition under Article 227 in the Allahabad High Court. The petition was listed as likely to be infructuous, and no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue that the cause of action still existed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ …

ARVIND KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Arvind Kumar filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to quash an order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in a criminal revision, and an order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments …

SMT. RIYA SHAH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Riya Shah and her husband, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted school marksheets to prove majority and …

SURENDRA PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, on the ground that the parties had reached a full compromise. Both parties, including the …

SMT LATAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Smt. Lata applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 752 of 2025) under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S., alleging that her drunken husband assaulted her and died accidentally during a scuffle when she tried to protect herself. The prosecution’s case is based mainly on her confessional statement, …

RAMASHRYA PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

The appellant, Ramashrya Prasad, filed an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS alleging gang‑rape and casteist slurs by seven accused and seeking a fresh investigation, including electronic evidence. The Special Judge treated the application as a complaint and dismissed it, holding that the …

SHAHRUKH KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The applicant, Shahrukh Khan, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No.135 of 2026) under Section 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act. The court examined the material on record, noting that both the informant and the victim had turned hostile during the trial and …

KRISHNA MURARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to obtain police protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of age (high school marksheet and Aadhar) and asserted that …

VIRENDRA AND 10 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

The appellants, Virendra and ten others, appealed against the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the charge‑sheet and cognizance order dated October 2019 in a case involving offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 323/149, 504, 506 and SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)Dha. They claimed that the …

MAHENDRA AND OTHERSversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quash of criminal proceedings (Case No. 4567 of 2022) arising from offences under Sections 452, 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement outside court, and the compromise …

KHUSHANT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED

The petitioners sought a one‑week extension to file a supplementary affidavit annexing the receipt of registry. The Court granted the requested time and ordered that the matter be listed as a fresh case on 21‑May‑2026.

RAJU KURAISHI @ UMARDARAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellant Raju Kuraishi was charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 120B, 504 and 506 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly cheating a victim in a property sale. The appellant contended that the FIR stemmed from a civil dispute, that the delay in filing the …

SMT. RESHAM KUMARI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Resham Kumari and her husband, are adults who have cohabited and applied for marriage registration, but face threats and harassment from a private respondent and family members. They filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their …

ARZOO AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Arzoo and her husband, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted identity proof and affidavits confirming a voluntary …

VIPIN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult individuals of different faiths in a live-in relationship, alleged harassment and threats from family members and sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the police to protect their life and liberty. The respondents opposed the prayer, arguing no legal basis …

SADARUDDIN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Sadaruddin Khan, an 80‑year‑old senior citizen, filed a writ petition under the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking monthly maintenance from his sons, respondents No.4 and No.5, after alleging that his inherited property had been taken over by them. …

SMT PAYAL VISHWAKARMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, a married couple, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The Court noted that both petitioners are adults, presented proof of age, and are living together …

DEVBRAT SINGHversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Devbrat Singh filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the State of U.P. and another respondent. The petitioner was represented by counsel Raju Ratan Chauhan, while the respondents were represented by G.A. No party appeared before the Court to press the petition. The Court …

SMT. JANVI SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Janvi Singh and her husband, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection. They asserted that both are adults, have married of their own free will, and face threats from family …

RAJU YADAV AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, a group of farmers, were implicated in an alleged assault at a sugar mill based on a FIR lodged a day after the incident, despite no injuries, no victim complaint, and no direct evidence linking them to the alleged offences. They filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS …

VIJAY NARAYAN RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Vijay Narayan Ram filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State and Prayagraj Development Authority to pay fair compensation with interest under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for 303 sq. yd. …

SMT SANJANA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and to provide police protection, alleging threats from family members. They submitted school marksheets to prove majority and affidavits confirming a voluntary …

VARSHA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult individuals of different faiths in a live-in relationship, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The respondents opposed the …

SMT. ZOHRA KHATOON AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, adult husband and wife, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and to provide police protection. They alleged threats and harassment from family members and intended to register their marriage. The Court, relying on Supreme Court …

SMT. KUSUM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted identity proof and affidavits confirming a consensual marriage and …

SMT. NEELAM AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, a married adult couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of age and affirmed that their marriage was entered …

SMT. KAVITA SAROJ AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Kavita Saroj and her husband, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and to provide them protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of majority and affirmed that their marriage was entered …

JAMEEL ANSARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioners, Jameel Ansari and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Allahabad High Court. Their counsel was Abdul Saleem Ahamad, while the State was represented by G.A. The petitioners failed to appear even after a revised call. The learned …

SMT JYOTI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Petitioners Jyoti and another filed a writ petition challenging actions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The respondents' standing counsel submitted that a criminal FIR had already been lodged under Sections 87, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code at B.N.S. Police Station, …

ISHWARversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Ishwar, who was arrested in a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 82 of 2025) under Sections 316(5) and 61(2). Ishwar claimed innocence and argued that co‑accused had already been released on bail, invoking parity. The State opposed the …

SMT. SHWETA YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Shweta Yadav and her partner, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection. They alleged that they are adults who voluntarily cohabited and solemnised marriage without coercion, …

SANTRAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of entries in the Parivar Register for 1995 and 2008, which was based on a belated appeal filed in 2021 under Section 6-A of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, instead of the appropriate 1970 Rules, without condoning the delay. The court also noted …

SAKUNTLA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)

The petitioners, Sakuntla Devi and another, who are already married, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to safeguard their life and liberty, alleging threats and harassment from family members due to their live‑in relationship. They submitted Aadhaar proof of majority and …

SMT KRISHNAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Petitioner Smt Krishna filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner, through counsel Uma Nath Pandey, prayed for leave to withdraw the petition. The respondents, represented by G.A., raised no objection to the withdrawal. The Court, after hearing, …

YASEENversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant Yaseen was arrested along with co-accused for alleged possession of 12.75 quintals of poppy straw under the NDPS Act. He contended that the recovery memo and rent agreement linking him to the premises were forged, and that co-accused Amarpal Singh and Nazir @ Abdullah had already been …

SIMRAN KUMARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Simran Kumari and another, are adult individuals who have solemnised a marriage of their own free will and seek a writ of mandamus to prevent any interference in their peaceful married life and to obtain protection from threats. They submitted school marksheets to prove majority and …

ROSHNI DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Roshni Devi and her husband, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection, alleging threats from family members. They submitted evidence of their ages and joint affidavits …

SMT. KHUSHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioners, a married couple who are both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State and a private respondent not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide them protection. They alleged threats and harassment from family members and submitted school …

SMT. MUSKAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals living together in a live-in relationship, alleged harassment and threats from family members and sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the police to protect their life and liberty. The court examined whether the Constitution's …

VIRENDRA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, asserting that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 12‑09‑2025. The State and the second opposite party did not contest the settlement. The …

SANDEEP KUMAR GAUNversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Gaun, filed a writ petition seeking a fair price shop license on the basis that it was inherited from his grandfather and that his pending application should be decided expeditiously. The State's standing counsel argued that the petitioner might not fall within the …

SANDHYA KUMARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioners, Sandhya Kumari and her partner, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted school mark‑sheets to prove they are adults and …

SNEHA SINGH YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Sneha Singh Yadav and another, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection. They asserted that they are adults who have married of their own free will and face threats from …

SMT. GUDIYA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Gudiya and her husband, are adult individuals who have married and are living together, fearing interference and threats from family members. They filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb their peaceful married life and to provide police …

BHAGWANDEEN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Bhagwandeen and four others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a criminal case (Case No. 19290 of 2025) involving offences under sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 351(2) and 324(2) of the BNS P.S. …

MONIKA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioners, who are in a live‑in relationship, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to protect their life and liberty against threats from private respondents. The petitioners alleged that the private respondents might eliminate them for family honour. The State …

MOHAN SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and all proceedings arising from a case under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The parties had reached a full settlement, which …

SMT. SHIVANI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Shivani and her husband, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection, alleging threats from family members. They submitted school marksheets to prove they are major and have …

VIPIN KUMAR GANGWAR @ RAJAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vipin Kumar Gangwar in a criminal case involving alleged rape, blackmail, and the sending of obscene messages under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, a former neighbour, drugged the …

JOKHU RAMversusNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS

Jokhu Ram filed a public interest litigation seeking demolition of encroachments on a State Highway by certain respondents. The Court noted that one of those respondents had filed a separate writ (Writ‑C No. 29809 of 2026) in which the petitioner was impleaded, and a coordinate bench had already …

SAPANA KUMARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, Sapana Kumari and her partner, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide them protection. They asserted that they are adults who have married of their own free will, have applied for marriage …

VIPIN KUMAR YADAV @ VISHVA CHAND YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Vipin Kumar Yadav, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 03‑12‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 20‑03‑2026 in State v. Alok Kumar Pandey (Case No. 340 of 2026). The charge sheet was filed under Section 351(2) of the BNS, which …

SMT. NEHA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, both adults, filed a writ of mandamus seeking protection from interference in their marital life and direction to the authorities to safeguard them. They submitted school marksheets to prove majority, affidavits confirming a consensual marriage, and alleged threats from family …

PUJA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals in a live‑in relationship, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the State to prevent family members from harassing them and to provide police protection. The court noted that the facts were analogous to the earlier decision in …

PREMLATA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals of different faiths living together in a live‑in relationship, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The Court observed …

PARUL SINGH AND ANOHTERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

The petitioners, an adult married couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of age, marriage registration, and affidavits asserting …

NEHA KHATUN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals in a live-in relationship, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The Court noted that the facts were analogous to a prior …

BRIJKISHORE PALversusANIL KUMAR CHATURVEDI AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioner, Brijkishore Pal, a tenant, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an eviction order and rent arrears order dated 20‑08‑2025 issued by the Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate under Section 4(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.16 of 2021, and a …

KAVITA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, who are in a live-in relationship, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to protect their life and liberty from alleged threats by private respondents. The petitioners claimed they faced danger of being eliminated for family honour. The State contended that …

FIZA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, a married couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The court noted that both petitioners are adults, have consented to the …

SMT. MOSINA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals in a live-in relationship, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection against threats from family members. Relying on Article 226, they argued that their fundamental …

AANCHAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult individuals in a live-in relationship, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection. The Court observed that both petitioners are major, referencing earlier decisions …

SURAJ PATEL @ SURAJ KUMAR PATEL (CORPUS)versusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

Petitioner Uma Shankar Patel filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his son Suraj Patel was illegally detained by private respondents No.4 to 9. The Attorney General later produced a General Diary entry showing that Suraj Patel had been returned to the petitioner's custody on 19 July 2026. The …

DHARMENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dharmendra in a case under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The applicant claimed false implication, arguing that the victim, a minor, had misrepresented her …

PRIYANKA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

The petitioners, two adult individuals of different faiths, married under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act and live together, alleging harassment and threats from a private respondent and family members. They filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere …

SMT. FAREEN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

The petitioners, a married adult couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide them protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of age, marriage registration, and affidavits affirming …

MS KSRISTY ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a summoning order dated 20‑12‑2022 and the entire proceedings in case No. 260139 of 2022 (Manoj v. Ksristy & another), which arose from a complaint under Section 379 IPC. The complaint had named …

SHACHI DUBEY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Shachi Dubey and another filed a criminal revision challenging an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur dated 28.11.2024 in a matrimonial dispute. The parties had earlier undergone mediation at the High Court’s mediation and conciliation centre and executed a settlement …

BILAL AHMAD AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioners, Bilal Ahmad and five others, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 25‑05‑2025 that alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties had earlier settled their marital dispute through a …

SAYYAD MOHAMMAD AVIDversusSTATE OF U.P.

Sayyad Mohammad Avid was arrested in connection with alleged forgery of documents to obtain two passports and was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1) of the Passports Act. Two FIRs were lodged for the same incident, leading the applicant to claim double …

PREETAM SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Petitioners Preetam Singh and another filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12181 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court. After hearing, counsel for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw the petition, stating they would pursue any other appropriate remedy. The State, represented by the …