Dismissed¶13

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025TACR/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution of dormant Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 22 of 2021; non-appearance of applicants and counsel at call-out in revised list; applicants and counsel lost interest; application pending since 2021; maxims vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt and interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium; refusal to dispose on merits; vacation of interim order; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; single-judge coram Saurabh Lavania; decided October 8, 2025; parties Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the application should not be disposed of on merits and should instead be dismissed for non-prosecution, as the applicants and their counsel had lost interest and no one appeared to press it. ¶13

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 22 of 2021

¶2

Vinay Kumar Singh And Another

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

		Versus
State of U.P. and Others				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Manuvendra Vijay Bahadur	Singh Singh	, Arvind Singh,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A., Angrej Kumar Singh, Tripathi	Nath Rama	Shukla, Ashutosh Soni, Rohit Kumar

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶7

Case called out in revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicants to press this application. However, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the private opposite party(s) are present before the Court.

¶8

It appears that the applicants and the counsel engaged by them have lost the interest in the case and are not interested in pursuing the application, which is pending since 2021.

¶9

It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:-

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels that the application 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.

¶14

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶15

October 8, 2025

¶16

Arun/-

¶17

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

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Jwala Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P.

Anand Praksh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Smt. Sarojni Devi Thru. Her Husband Sri Ritesh Kumar @ Phool Chandra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Sher Ali (Minor) Thru. His Mother and Natural Gaurdian Mrs. Shabana Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Vikas Gupta @ Monu Gupta vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Lucknow and another