Latest news with #AllahabadHighCourt
NDTV
8 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Supreme Court Stays Trial In 2 Cases Involving Azam Khan's Son Abdullah
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court directing Rampur's MP-MLA court to proceed with the trial in two cases linked to former MLA and senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on an appeal filed by Abdullah. On July 23, the high court dismissed two petitions filed by Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards. "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," the high court said. Abdullah filed separate petitions in the high court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA court. BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a case against Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth. According to the complaint, Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993. Saxena also filed an FIR against Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019. Saxena alleged that Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 assembly elections. Saxena also accused Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections. According to him, Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission. He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Allahabad HC stays further proceedings in 2017 case against Ajay Rai
The Allahabad High Court has stayed further proceedings in a case against former Congress MLA Ajai Rai involving violation of a 2017 restraint order under section 144 of CrPC. Justice Sameer Jain passed the order on Monday in a petition filed by Rai challenging summons issued against him as well as the charge sheet filed by police. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Project Management Design Thinking Digital Marketing Public Policy Operations Management MBA Degree Management MCA Technology Product Management Leadership healthcare Artificial Intelligence Healthcare Data Science PGDM Finance CXO Data Science others Cybersecurity Data Analytics Others Skills you'll gain: Project Planning & Governance Agile Software Development Practices Project Management Tools & Software Techniques Scrum Framework Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Certificate Programme in IT Project Management Starts on Jun 20, 2024 Get Details Skills you'll gain: Portfolio Management Project Planning & Risk Analysis Strategic Project/Portfolio Selection Adaptive & Agile Project Management Duration: 6 Months IIT Delhi Certificate Programme in Project Management Starts on May 30, 2024 Get Details Rai, in his petition, sought quashing of the summons order dated September 9, 2019 and the charge sheet of November 7, 2017 as well as the entire proceedings of the case lodged in 2017 at Kotwali police station in, Varanasi under section 188 (Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) of IPC. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo After hearing the parties concerned, the court fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing and observed, "In the meantime, further proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, shall remain stayed."
Hindustan Times
19 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad high court orders DCP-level probe into ‘fake' Arya Samaj societies in Uttar Pradesh
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has directed the secretary home, Uttar Pradesh, to launch an investigation into how 'fake' Arya Samaj societies have proliferated across the state. The court noted that these societies solemnise illegal marriages between individuals of different religions, often without verifying the age of the bride and groom, and with malafide intent. Before issuing the directions, the court noted that the applicant and the victim belong to different religions. (FOR REPRESENTATION) Justice Prasant Kumar dismissed a petition filed by Sonu alias Shahnur, who had sought to quash a summons dated September 12, 2024, along with the entire proceedings of a criminal case pending against him. The case, registered at Nichlaul police station in Maharajganj district, involves charges of kidnapping a woman to compel her into marriage, rape, and offences under various sections of the POCSO Act. The matter is currently pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Maharajganj. Justice Kumar directed that the investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of deputy commissioner of police. Before issuing the directions, the court noted that the applicant and the victim belong to different religions. 'The application states that the marriage was solemnised at an Arya Samaj Mandir in Prayagraj. However, such a marriage could not have been legally performed without proper conversion in accordance with existing law,' the court observed. The defence counsel argued that since the girl was a minor at the time of her marriage, the marriage was void. He further stated that the girl was placed in Nari Niketan, and upon attaining majority, she willingly began living with the applicant. On other hand, the government counsel argued that the girl was a minor as per her high school certificate and therefore, she could not have legally married the applicant. He submitted that since the applicant and the victim belong to different religions, their marriage cannot be considered as valid unless proper conversion procedures are followed in accordance with the provisions of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. He also said the marriage certificate the couple produced, as issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir, seemed to be fabricated, and cited a previous order to claim that the problem was rife in UP. In its order dated July 24, the court observed, 'Registration of all marriages solemnized in the State of Uttar Pradesh is mandatory under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In this case, the marriage was not registered. Furthermore, records indicate that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore, any marriage purportedly solemnized by her cannot be considered valid.'
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Allahabad HC Flags Mass Illegal Arya Samaj Marriages, Dismisses Plea In Minor's Rape Case
Last Updated: Court dismissed a petition filed by a man accused of kidnapping and raping a minor, rejecting his claim that the two were married. The Allahabad High Court has raised alarm over the growing number of allegedly illegal interfaith marriages being conducted by Arya Samaj temples in Uttar Pradesh, many involving minor girls and lacking proper legal formalities. Court also dismissed a petition filed by a man accused of kidnapping and raping a minor, rejecting his claim that the two were married. Justice Prashant Kumar, while hearing a plea filed by one Sonu alias Shahnur, declined to quash the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant had challenged the 2024 summoning order and sought to halt trial proceedings in a POCSO case registered against him. As per the FIR filed in 2020, the girl's father alleged that his minor daughter was abducted by the applicant. Sonu claimed the two had married in an Arya Samaj Mandir in Prayagraj a day before the complaint was filed and that the girl later chose to live with him after becoming an adult. The court, however, found that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged marriage, and that no valid religious conversion had taken place between the interfaith couple as required under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Court also noted the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj was unregistered and possibly fabricated. Further, court added that the marriage had not been registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Therefore, court directed the Uttar Pradesh Home Secretary to investigate how such Arya Samaj organisations were able to operate freely despite allegedly flouting legal norms. The probe is to be led by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, and a compliance report is to be filed by August 29, 2025. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC asks Justice Varma why he appeared before inquiry panel if it was unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee probing the unaccounted cash row if it was unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench. 'Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past,' said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih. The bench also questioned why Varma waited for the inquiry committee to submit its report before moving the court, according to Live Law. The court was hearing Varma's plea against the committee's report that indicted him in the unaccounted cash row. The Allahabad High Court judge had also challenged the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna – the chief justice of India when the report was submitted – to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On Monday, Varma told the Supreme Court that he had appeared before the three-member inquiry committee because he thought it would 'find out who the cash belongs to', reported Live Law. Alleging that the committee did not follow procedure, Varma's counsel Kapil Sibal said that judges can only be removed from their post as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report. Article 124 deals with the composition of the Supreme Court, the appointment and removal of judges, and their qualifications. 'Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted,' said Sibal. 'All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution – release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, accusation against judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.' He was referring to a report released by the Supreme Court on March 22, which included a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The court had also set up the three-member committee to look into the allegations against Varma. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. Sibal stated on Monday that by releasing the report, the process to remove Varma from his post had been politicised, according to Live Law. However, the Supreme Court said that the judge could not raise these points after having participated in the inquiry process. The bench adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, asking Sibal to submit the in-house inquiry committee's report. The committee, in its report, concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. Varma had challenged the committee's report ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Varma. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge.
