# Zaved Akhtar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14644 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/zaved-akhtar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49226
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d),
21, 226, - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 -
110-G,
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860
-
Sections 147, 324, 325, 504 & 506 - U.P.
Police Regulations,1861 - Para 228, 238 -
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition - to quash the history-sheet issued
against petitioner in class B Category - the act
of opening Class B history-sheet against the
petitioner was erroneous without the facts being
verified and without reasonable satisfaction
being reached by the respondents - court finds
that, in the give facts and circumstances and
having regard to the nature of the cases lodged
against the petitioner would not fall within the
ambit of Regulations 228 to have persuaded the
St. Authorities to open Class B history sheet
against the petitioner - hence, impugned
charge-sheet
is
quashed,
direction
accordingly.(Para - 10, 11, 12)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Munna Lal Gupta Vs St. of UP & ors. (2016 vol. 4 ADJ
(NOC) 46).

## Text

4 All. Zaved Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505
informed, reasonable and fair to all
concerned."

35. We also do not find any substance
in the submission made by counsel for the
respondent on the question of locus of the
petitioner to maintain the writ petition. The
petitioner is definitely a close relative of
the deceased and the nephew of the first
informant in Case Crime No. 158 of 2000.
He has also appeared in the witness box as
PW No.2 during trial. He is also said to
have been doing pairavi in the criminal
cases even up to the High Court even in
pending appeal which fact is not denied.

36. There is substance in the
contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that it cannot be said that the
petitioner
alone
is
challenging
the
impugned order because even the son of the
deceased who was minor at the time of
incident has supported the writ petition
having sworn the rejoinder affidavit which
is filed on record.

37. For the foregoing reasons, in our
considered opinion, the impugned order
granting remission/commutation to the 8th
respondent cannot be sustained.

38. The writ petition is liable to be
allowed and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order dated 28.05.2022 is hereby
set aside.

39. No order as to costs.

40. The original record produced by
learned AGA be returned to him forthwith
after obtaining his signatures on the ordersheet evidencing receipt thereof.

41. In the body of the judgment, we
have observed that wrong and incomplete
information was provided by the jail
authorities, on the basis whereof, remission
was granted to the contesting respondent,
Kamal Mishra, although he was not entitled
for the same, and this act of concealment
and falsehood appears to be manifestly
purposive.

42. It, therefore, appears fit and
proper to direct the respondent no.1,
Principal Secretary, Prison Administration
and Reform, Section 2, U.P. Government,
Lucknow, to institute an enquiry to identify
and to take appropriate action against the
person(s) responsible for such falsehood
and concealment. This is being directed as
the Apex Court has held that: "Decision to
grant remission has to be well-informed,
reasonable and fair to all concerned."
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14644 of 2019

Zaved Akhtar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sri Akhilesh Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(i)
Criminal
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d),
21, 226, - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 -
110-G,
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860
-
Sections 147, 324, 325, 504 & 506 - U.P.
Police Regulations,1861 - Para 228, 238 -
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition - to quash the history-sheet issued
against petitioner in class B Category - the act
of opening Class B history-sheet against the
petitioner was erroneous without the facts being
verified and without reasonable satisfaction
being reached by the respondents - court finds
that, in the give facts and circumstances and
having regard to the nature of the cases lodged
against the petitioner would not fall within the
ambit of Regulations 228 to have persuaded the
St. Authorities to open Class B history sheet
against the petitioner - hence, impugned
charge-sheet
is
quashed,
direction
accordingly.(Para - 10, 11, 12)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Munna Lal Gupta Vs St. of UP & ors. (2016 vol. 4 ADJ
(NOC) 46).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J. &
Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This is the third writ petition filed
by the petitioner seeking to quash the
history-sheet No. 18/B, P. S.-Kotwali
Dehat, district-Bijnor opened against the
petitioner.

3. The history-sheet has been
prepared in Class-B category noting therein
the following cases:

(i) Case Crime No. 74A/1995, under
Sections-324, 325, 504, 506 and 147 I. P.
C.

(ii) Case Crime No. 160 of 2015,
under Section-110G Cr. P. C.

4. It is submitted that the history-sheet
in Class B category could not have been
opened against the petitioner as the historysheet is not in accordance with the
provisions of Paragraph 228 of the U. P.
Police Regulations, which read as under:

"Para
228.
History
sheet
and
surveillance: Part V consists of history
sheets. These are the personal records of
criminals under surveillance. History-sheet
should be opened only for persons who are
or likely to become habitual criminal or
abettors of such criminals. There will be
two classes of history-sheets.:

(1) Class A history-sheets for dacoits,
burglars,
cattle-thieves,
railway-goods
wagon thieves, and abettors thereof.

(2)
Class
B
history-sheets
for
confirmed and professional criminals who
commit crimes other than dacoity, burglary,
cattle-theft, and theft from railway goods
wagons, e. g., professional cheats and other
experts for whom criminal personal files
are
maintained
by
the
Criminal
Investigation Department, poisoners, cattle
poisoners,
railway
passenger
thieves,
bicycle
thieves,
expert
pick-pockets,
forgers,
coiners
cocaine
and
opium
smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas,
telegraph
wire-cutters,
habitual
illicit
distillers and abettors thereof.

5. History-sheets of both classes will
be maintained in similar form, but those for
class B will be distinguished by a red bar
marked at the top of the first page. No
history-sheet of class B may be converted
into a history-sheet of class A, though
should be the subject of a history-sheet of
class B be found to be also addicted to
dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft or theft from
railway goods wagons. A class, as well as
B Class, surveillance may under paragraph
238 be applied to him. In the event of a
class A history-sheet man becoming
addicted
to
miscellaneous
crime
his
history-sheet may be converted into a class
4 All. Zaved Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507
B history-sheet with the sanction of the
Superintendent.

6. Further Regulation 228 provides
that Class-B history-sheet can be opened
only against the confirmed and professional
criminal, who had committed a crime of
dacoity, burglary, cattle theft or theft from
railway goods, wagons etc. or who is expert
or habitual offender in other crimes as
mentioned in this paragraph.

7. In this backdrop, it is submitted
that in the sole criminal case, petitioner
came to be acquitted by the competent
Court. Further it is submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated due
to village party bandi at the behest of Gram
Pradhan. In the counter affidavit filed by
the State Government, it is not in dispute
that the petitioner came to be acquitted and
at present there is no case pending against
him.

8. It is stated that the history-sheet in
Class-B could not have been opened as the
petitioner
is
neither
a
habitual
or
professional criminal indulging in criminal
activities. It is not the case of the
respondent-State that the petitioner was
found guilty in any of the offences. In the
past seven years, no criminal activity of the
petitioner was ever been reported or any
other anti-social activities. It is further
submitted that opening of the Class-B
history-sheet against the provisions of
Regulation 228 violates the provisions of
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of
India that protects the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression of a
citizen. Further Article 19 (1) (d) of the
Constitution which confers right to move
freely throughout the territory of India and
Article 21 of the Constitution of India that
'no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal
liberty
except
according
to
procedure established by law'

9. It is specifically pleaded that the
petitioner and his family members are
being deprived of character certificates
only for the reason that the petitioner's
name is recorded in Class-B history-sheet.
In this backdrop, it is submitted that
petitioner is being deprived of his right to
freedom. Reliance has been placed on a
Division Bench decision of this Court
rendered in Munna Lal Gupta Versus
State of U. P. and others; 2016 4 ADJ
(NOC) 46.

10. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and stand of the
respondent-State, we are of the opinion,
that the act of opening Class B historysheet against the petitioner was erroneous
without the facts being verified and without
reasonable satisfaction being reached by
the State-respondent. The history-sheet was
never reviewed because rules provide that
Class B history-sheet shall continue till
death.

11. We are of the view that in the
given facts and circumstances and having
regard to the nature of the cases lodged
against the petitioner, he would not fall
within the ambit of Regulation 228 to have
persuaded the State authorities to open
Class B history-sheet against the petitioner.

12. Hence, history-sheet No. 18/B, P.
S.-Kotwali Dehat, district-Bijnor opened
against the petitioner is quashed. The State
respondents are directed to close the
present history-sheet of the petitioner and
not to keep surveillance on the petitioner in
pursuance of the said history-sheet.

13. Writ petition is allowed.
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 508
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 189 of 1993
alongwith
First Appeal From Order Nos. 190 of 1993, 191
of 1993, 193 of 1993, 196 of 1993 & 198 of
1993

Radhey Shyam Jawarani & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Walliguru Khan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.P. Shukla, Abhishek Dhaon, Sankalp Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
M.S. Kotwal

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1989Section
173-enhancement
of
awardTribunal without any basis awarded a
sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- towards nonpecuniary benefits which is contrary to
the settled principles as laid down by
the Apex Court-the claimants shall be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 7,
53, 835 which shall carry interest @ of
9%
per
annum
from
the
date
of
application till the date of its actual
payment-the claimants shall be entitled
to recover the total compensation from
either of the two joint tortfeasor and
any of the two joint tortfeasor who
satisfies the award shall be entitled to
recover the 50% of the award from the
other joint tortfeasor in accordance with
law as settled by the Apex Court in
Khenyei.(Para 1 to 71)
The writ petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Khenyei Vs New India Ass. Co. Ltd. & ors.
(2015) 9 SCC 273

2. Smt. Suman & ors. Vs Smt. Anisa Begum &
Another, FAFO No. 126 of 2010

3. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. This is a bunch of six appeals
preferred under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1989. Three appeals have
been preferred by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the award whereas the
other three appeals have been instituted by
the insurance company assailing the award.
Since the issue of enhancement shall come
subsequent as it first has to be determined
whether the award passed by the Tribunal is
in order. In case if the award survives only
then the issue of enhancement shall be
considered and in view thereof this Court
proposes to take up the three appeals first
which have been preferred by the insurance
company.

2. The record would indicate that in
the
appeals
filed
by
the
Insurance
Company, an application for substitution
has been moved as the respondent no. 3 Sri
Kungoo Mal had expired and he is survived
by his son Radhey Shyam Jawarani.
Significantly,
despite
the
applications
having been moved by the Insurance
Company in the appeals filed by them yet
the appellants of the other three appeals
which have been filed by the claimants
have not moved similar application for
substitution.

3. Be that as it may, considering that
the application for amendment is on record
in few appeals which are being allowed as
there is no issue of abatement as the legal