Allahabad High Court
/11384/2025 of DEV KAPOOR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND OTHERS on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11384 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11384 of 2025
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being finally decided.
3. Instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to forthwith remove the name of the petitioner from the publicly displayed board titled "Sanction Board- Chowki Kesariganj, Thana Laharpur- Sitapur Durachari (H.S.) Ka Vivran" or any similar public display declaring him a history-sheeter/ durachari.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner being an under trial his name has been indicated at serial No.31 in the Sanction Board at Chowki Keshariganj, Thana Laharpur, District Sitapur, a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
5. Placing reliance on regulation 250 of the U.P. Police Regulations, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said history sheet etc. are confidential and there cannot be any occasion for the respondent authorities to display the same on the display board.
6. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in this regard, he has already submitted an application dated 17.11.2025, a copy of which has been annexed as Annxure-2 to the petition, to the Superintendent of Police, District Sitapur and prays that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen, Digvijay Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dev Kapoor .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others .....Respondent(s)
the competent authority be directed to decide the said application in accordance with law and relevant rules and regulations.
7. On the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA has no objection.
8. Accordingly without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. Superintendent of Police, District Sitapur, to decide the pending application of the petitioner dated 17.11.2025 in accordance with law and relevant rules and regulations preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
9. The petitioner while placing a certified copy of this order before the authorities would need to annex the application dated 17.11.2025. . (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) December 4, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 11384 of 2025 2
Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench