This is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified advocate.
Notable Judgments — August 2025
Annapurna Srivastava And 83 Others vs State Of U.P.
| Case No. | WRIT-C No. 7408 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:48350 |
| Date | 19 August 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhatia |
| Subject | Territorial Jurisdiction — OTS Scheme Allotment Dispute |
Eighty-four petitioners sought allotment of properties and claimed they were wrongfully denied benefits under a One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. The benefits had been extended through board resolutions exclusively to applicants who withdrew cases pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The court dismissed the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that since the board resolution, proceedings, and regulatory matters originated in Gautam Buddha Nagar, no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the appropriate bench at Allahabad.
Key Legal Principle: Territorial jurisdiction is a threshold requirement. Petitioners must file writ petitions before the bench within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action, even partially, arises. Filing at an incorrect bench may result in dismissal.
Kanhaiya Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
| Case No. | WRIT-C No. 18080 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC:150567 |
| Date | 27 August 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Chandra Dhari Singh |
| Subject | Maintainability of Appeal under Societies Registration Act |
The petition challenged an order rejecting an appeal as non-maintainable under Section 4(1A) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner contended that appeals against orders passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B were permissible. Citing a prior Lucknow Bench judgment establishing that appeals under Section 4(1A) are maintainable against orders under Section 4 to the Commissioner, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits within six weeks.
Key Legal Principle: Appeals under Section 4(1A) of the Societies Registration Act against orders of the Assistant Registrar are maintainable before the Commissioner. Precedent from the same court on statutory interpretation is binding and must be followed by subordinate authorities.
Sandeep Babber vs State Of U.P.
| Case No. | Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 1101 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:51394 |
| Date | 29 August 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Lavania |
| Subject | Quashing of Criminal Proceedings on Compromise in Matrimonial Dispute |
The applicant sought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 144 BNSS arising from a matrimonial dispute. The parties had reached a comprehensive settlement agreement dated 27 August 2025, which included mutual divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act with a financial settlement. The court, after verifying the genuineness of the compromise through the Senior Registrar, allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings active given the genuine settlement between the parties.
Key Legal Principle: Courts may quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes when parties reach a genuine compromise, particularly under Section 528 BNSS. The court will verify the settlement’s genuineness before exercising this power.
Yogendra Singh Verma vs State Of U.P.
| Case No. | Criminal Revision No. 903 of 2025 |
| Citation | 2025:AHC-LKO:49429 |
| Date | 22 August 2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Lavania |
| Subject | Discharge Application — Attempt to Murder Charges Despite Simple Injuries |
This criminal revision challenged a Sessions Court order rejecting a discharge application under Section 250 BNSS regarding charges including Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). The accused argued that the medical examination revealed only simple injuries, which could not sustain attempted murder charges. The court upheld established legal principles, ruling that the intention to cause death matters far more than the nature of injury actually inflicted. The court held that at the discharge stage, prosecution evidence must be assumed true, and medical evidence suggesting throat pressure causing respiratory obstruction provided sufficient basis for trial.
Key Legal Principle: Charges under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) are not negated merely because the victim sustained only simple injuries. The court examines the intention and the nature of the act, not just the outcome, when considering discharge applications.
Useful Resources
For full text of judgments and orders, readers may refer to:
- Indian Kanoon — Free legal database for published judgments
- Allahabad High Court Official Website — Daily orders, cause lists, and circulars
- eCourts India — Case status and court orders
Disclaimer: The information provided above is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, solicitation, or advertisement. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances. The summaries above are based on publicly available information from Indian Kanoon and official court records.