Dismissed¶17

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

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2025CRLP/7896/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of criminal misc. writ petition for non-prosecution; petitioner and counsel absent in revised list; maxims on vigilance of litigants and end to litigation; interim order vacated; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; decided October 29, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Since neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared to press the petition despite its pendency since 2021, the Court declined to decide the matter on merits and dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, invoking the maxims Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt and Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. ¶17

Mohd. Tarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7896 of 2021

Mohd. Tarik

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Ors.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd.Imran Khan, R.A. Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶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, which is pending since 2021.

¶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

¶19

Vinay/-

¶20

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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