Dismissed¶17

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Police Commissioner Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2025CRLP/5671/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UP Lucknow Bench writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 5671 of 2021; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.; Saurabh Lavania J.) dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-10-2025 after petitioner and counsel failed to appear; interim order vacated; maxims 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt' and 'Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' invoked; petition not decided on merits; no statutes or precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Since neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared or showed interest in pursuing the petition, the Court declined to dispose of the petition on merits and dismissed it for non-prosecution; any interim order stands vacated. ¶17

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Police Commissioner Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5671 of 2021

Anil Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Police Commissioner Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Ashwani Kumar Singh

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Case called out in revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. However, learned counsel representing side opposite is present in the Court.

¶12

It appears that the petitioner and the counsel engaged by the petitioner both have lost the interest in the case and are not interested in pursuing the petition.

¶13

It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:-

¶14

(i) Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (The law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights); and

¶15

(ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (In the interest of the society as a whole, the litigation must come to an end).

¶16

The above said two maxims are sister provisions, which would highlight and spotlight that the party seeking remedy before the Court should be vigilant, otherwise, the law would not come to their help and there should be end to litigation.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels that the petition should not be disposed of on merits and should be dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, it is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶18

October 29, 2025 Vinay/-

¶19

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Police Commissioner Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Police Commissioner Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Majroof @ Majroof Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kallu @ Noor Mohammad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Anand Pratap Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Tarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.

Ghaus Ashraf Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Home and Ors.

Vikram Singh @ Vikky Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow and Ors.