# Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 179
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4461 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-irfan-siddiqui-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52132
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Act,
1988-Section
173-The
appellants
sought
compensation,
claiming
the
accident was due to the negligent driving
of the truck driver-Tribunal dismissed the
claim,
attributing
negligence
to
the
deceased-inconsistencies found in the
defenses evidence-The high court set
aside the Tribunal dismissal and ruled in
favour of the appellants and reaffirms the
legal principles the burden of proof lies
initially with the claimants to establish

## Text

6 All. Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
Station-
Kotwali
Ayodhya,
DistrictAyodhya pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya are liable to
be transferred from Ayodhya District Court
to the Gorakhpur District Court as the
apprehension of bias and fear for personal
safety are substantial grounds for transfer.
The influence exerted by the opponent's
relative who is a Sub-Inspector in the
police could unduly affect the investigation
and trial proceedings. The threats received
by the applicant further jeopardize their
ability to participate in the trial fearlessly..

26. Accordingly, the proceedings
of Case No.5024 of 2021 (State vs. Ashish
Singh and Others) arising out of Case
Crime No.651 of 2020 under Sections
498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station-Kotwali Ayodhya, District-Ayodhya
pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ayodhya are hereby transferred
from Ayodhya District Court to the
Gorakhpur
District
Court
and
the
proceedings of the case be conducted by
the competent trial court at DistrictGorakhpur, expeditiously.

27. For the reasons discussed
above, the instant application under Section
407 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is
allowed in respect of the instant applicant,
namely-Smt. Ankita Singh.

28. Registry of this Court is
directed to take necessary steps and make
arrangements to transfer all the records and
proceedings of the aforesaid case to the
District Court of Gorakhpur, forthwith.

29. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to both the District Courts i.e.
District Court Ayodhya and District Court
Gorakpur
for
necessary
action
and
compliance, forthwith, by the office of the
Senior Registrar of this Court.

30. No order as to cost(s).
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 179
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4461 of 2024

Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Azam Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article
226-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 154-lodging of FIRNon-compliance of the guideline in case of
Lalita Kumari-Direction issued to take
appropriate
steps
in
the
matter
in
question.(Para 1, 2)

B. In Lalita Kumari Case, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, after noticing the disparity in
registration of FIRs by police officers on
case to case basis across the country,
issued notice to the Union of India, the
Chief Secretaries of all the States and
Union Territories and Director Generals of
Police/Commissioners of Police to the
effect that if steps are not taken for
registration of FIRs immediately and the
copies thereof are not handed over to the
complainants,
they
may
move
the
Magistrates
concerned
by
filing
complaints for appropriate directions to
the police to register the case immediately
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
for
apprehending
the
accused
persons,
failing
which,
contempt
proceedings must be initiated against
such delinquent police officers if no
sufficient cause is shown.(Para 2)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & ors. (2014) 2
SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has approached
opposite parties for lodging the F.I.R.,
however no heed has been paid in the matter
in question. So, the petitioner has approached
this Court with the following main relief:-

"A writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing opposite party
no. 1 to take appropriate action against to fix
accountability of officer with respect to noncompliance of the guideline issued by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
Lalita Kumari versus Govt. of U.P. & others
and
as
well
as
issue
the
circular
no.15011/91/2013-SC/ST-W
on
dated
06.02.2014 Government of India Ministry of
Home Affairs Center state division as
annexure no 1 to this writ petition."

3. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and going through the record as
well as taking into consideration the law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 1, we hereby direct the
petitioner to approach opposite party No.1
in respect to the grievances which he has
raised in the present writ petition and
thereafter opposite party no.1 shall take
appropriate steps in the matter in question
as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).

4. With the above observations, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 180
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 2012

Bindheshwari Devi Srivastava & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Maurya & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Somesh Tripathi, Jay Krishna Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
O.P. Srivastava

A. Motor Accident Claim-Motor Vehicles
Act,
1988-Section
173-The
appellants
sought
compensation,
claiming
the
accident was due to the negligent driving
of the truck driver-Tribunal dismissed the
claim,
attributing
negligence
to
the
deceased-inconsistencies found in the
defenses evidence-The high court set
aside the Tribunal dismissal and ruled in
favour of the appellants and reaffirms the
legal principles the burden of proof lies
initially with the claimants to establish