Disposed

Sajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2024CRLP/1476/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench observed defective filing of verification affidavit where petitioner's name differed from signatory name. Ordered inquiry by Registrar on lapses. Directing court held victim name disclosure violated privacy provision under IPC.

What did the court decide?

Ordered inquiry into affidavit falsification. Directed redaction of victim's name as Section 228-A IPC was violated.

Sajid vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1476 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sajid Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- M.Usman Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Bahadur

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

The affidavit in support of the writ petition is in the name of Sajid, who is also the petitioner, however, the photographs and the endorsement on the photographs are in the name of one Rahees, son of Dulare. Signature on the affidavit is also of Raees. In the writ petition also the signatures are of Rahees.

¶6

It is inexplicable as to how this affidavit has been sworn before the Oath Commissioner. Most important, it is intriguing as to how such an affidavit was passed by the Reporting Section without noticing the defect. The photograph is of Rahees, affidavit is of Sajid and signatures are of Rahees. The entire mechanism, put into motion so as to ensure the identity of the person, who has filed the petition and the affidavit in support thereof, has been compromised.

¶7

Let the Senior Registrar of this Court conduct an inquiry, ascertain the lapses, and who are responsible for the same and submit a report before this Court by the next date.

¶8

Put up this case on 22.03.2024.

¶9

At this stage we find that the name of the victim of rape under Section 376, as claimed, has been disclosed in violation of Section 228-A IPC.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to redact the name and other details of the victim who has been arrayed as opposite party no.4 and write "X victim of case crime No.0279 of 2023" during the course of the day. Office shall also make necessary corrections in the computer records.

¶11

No application for withdrawal of this writ petition shall be entertained by the registry.

¶12

(Narendra Kumar Johari,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 28.2.2024/Vipul

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabhakar Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Moh. Shaban Alias Vaseem Alias Mo. Saban vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Kunvar Ramendra Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Narendra Giri and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Aslam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Others