Today’s briefing is led by the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, which has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to explain why police investigations are dragging on for months and whether a time frame can be fixed. We also cover two important motor accident compensation rulings, a warning from the Andhra Pradesh High Court on forged property documents, a Karnataka High Court ruling on when courts may order a DNA paternity test, and the Delhi High Court’s action on a long-pending trial court order.
Allahabad HC Seeks UP Plan on Delayed Police Investigations
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, has passed an order in Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others, a petition seeking transfer of a murder investigation. The petitioner wanted the probe moved to an independent agency such as the CB-CID or a court-monitored SIT. The FIR was lodged in November 2024 and a chargesheet was filed in April 2025, but the trial court ordered further investigation in February, and that further probe was still incomplete more than eight months later.
What the court held: The Bench noted what it called total lethargy and inaction by investigating officers, and observed that the problem appears to exist across Uttar Pradesh, while clarifying that this was not a final view. Relying on Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires investigations to be completed without unnecessary delay and informants to be kept updated, the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a personal affidavit within three weeks. The affidavit must say whether a time limit for investigations can be fixed and, if not, how delays will be remedied, and must disclose in how many Sultanpur district FIRs the complainants were informed of progress. If the affidavit is not filed, the officer must appear in person. The matter is listed on 8 December 2026.
What it means for you: If you are a complainant or victim in Uttar Pradesh and your case has been stuck at the investigation stage, the BNSS gives you a right to be informed of its progress. You can write to the investigating officer and senior police officers seeking an update, and where the delay is unreasonable, a petition before the High Court seeking time-bound investigation or transfer remains an available remedy. Accused persons also benefit when investigations finish on time, since prolonged probes keep cases hanging over them for years. Related practice area: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Delhi HC Raises Coma Victim’s Compensation to Rs 4.26 Crore
Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court decided an appeal filed on behalf of Bharat Ghai, a 39-year-old self-employed event management professional who was hit by a car near Najafgarh on 11 February 2022 and has been in a coma since, with 100% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded about Rs 1.52 crore.
What the court held: The High Court enhanced the compensation to about Rs 4.26 crore, with 7.5% annual interest from the date of the claim petition. It refused to rely on a single year’s income tax return and instead took the average income of the three preceding assessment years, following the Supreme Court’s approach for self-employed persons. It set aside a deduction for medical insurance payouts, accepted pharmacy bills backed by medical records, and awarded Rs 90 lakh towards lifelong care. The court said that where a victim is comatose, future expenses can be reasonably estimated from the circumstances, since they cannot always be precisely proved. Claims backed only by photocopied bills were not allowed. The insurer must deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks.
What it means for you: Families of seriously injured accident victims should keep original bills, prescriptions and medical records, because photocopies may not be accepted. Self-employed claimants should place several years of income tax returns on record, not just one. Money received from your own health insurance policy should not reduce the compensation payable by the vehicle’s insurer, and if a tribunal award looks inadequate for lifelong care, an appeal to the High Court can make a real difference. Related practice area: Civil Litigation.
Punjab and Haryana HC: A Waiter’s Regular Tips Count as Income
Justice Mandeep Pannu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal by United India Insurance Company against a 2017 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. The injured claimant, a waiter at a club, suffered 100% permanent disability in a road accident. The tribunal had taken his monthly income as Rs 12,000, made up of Rs 8,000 salary and Rs 4,000 in tips, and awarded about Rs 38.77 lakh.
What the court held: The insurer argued that tips are voluntary payments by customers and should be ignored. The High Court disagreed, holding that tips regularly earned in the hospitality sector form part of a worker’s income for computing compensation, even though they are paid by customers rather than the employer. Since the insurer produced no material to dispute the tip figure, the award was upheld.
What it means for you: Workers in hotels, restaurants, clubs, salons and delivery services often earn a meaningful part of their income through tips. In an accident claim, that income can be counted if it is regular and supported by evidence such as testimony of the employer or co-workers. Insurers who wish to challenge such figures need to bring contrary evidence, not just objections. Related practice area: Labour & Employment Law.
Andhra Pradesh HC Warns That Forging Property Documents Is a Grave Offence
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Alapati Giridhar, dismissed an appeal in Ramineni Eswara Rao and Another v. Nanapaneni Suresh. The appellants had sued for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell land, which the trial court had rejected.
What the court held: The High Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the sale agreement, the receipt or the payments. It noted several warning signs: the stamp papers carried serial numbers from the same series as the defendant’s 1997 registered mortgage deed, the agreement and a receipt said to be nine months apart appeared to have been typed at the same time, and the plaintiffs had not checked the seller’s title or obtained an encumbrance certificate. The court pointed out that forging valuable documents such as sale agreements and mortgage deeds is punishable under Section 467 of the IPC (now Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) with up to life imprisonment, and that fabricating false evidence is a separate offence. It dismissed the appeal with costs and left the parties free to seek an inquiry before the trial court under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS). It also noted that electronic evidence such as call records, chats and CCTV footage can help expose fabrication.
What it means for you: Before paying an advance for land or a flat, always verify the seller’s title, obtain an encumbrance certificate, and make payments through traceable banking channels with proper written acknowledgement. Litigants should also understand that relying on a doubtful or fabricated document in court can lead not only to losing the case but to criminal proceedings with very serious punishment. Related practice area: Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law.
Karnataka HC: Child’s Welfare Alone Cannot Justify a DNA Paternity Test
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of the Karnataka High Court set aside a family court order that had directed a man and a child to give blood samples for a DNA test in a maintenance case filed on the child’s behalf by her mother. The man denied paternity, and an earlier civil court had refused a similar DNA request.
What the court held: The High Court held that a court cannot order a paternity test simply by saying that the child’s welfare is paramount. It must give reasons and weigh the man’s privacy and bodily autonomy against the child’s interests, and decide whether the test is truly necessary and proportionate, in line with principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The court added that refusing a DNA test does not mean the biological relationship has been disproved, since a court may decline because other evidence is already sufficient. It also observed that a father’s duty to support his child does not depend on whether he was married to the mother. The application was sent back to the family court for fresh decision.
What it means for you: In maintenance and paternity disputes, a DNA test is not automatic. Mothers seeking maintenance for a child should build their case on available evidence, and need not depend only on a DNA test, while men contesting paternity can expect courts to examine carefully whether a test is justified. Children born outside marriage remain entitled to maintenance from their father. Related practice area: Family Law, Divorce & Matrimonial Disputes.
Delhi HC Seeks Explanation for Six-Month Delay in a Trial Court Order
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court, hearing Pradeep Bansal and Others vs State NCT of Delhi and Another, was told that arguments on an application to vacate an interim stay had been heard by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court) in January, but the order had remained pending since April.
What the court held: The High Court sought an explanation from the magistrate for the delay of over six months, and also asked the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the District Judge to explain the context of the magistrate’s remark that the court was working with a single stenographer and a pendency of over 4,500 cases. It said it could find no reason for the delay in the order sheets, and directed the registry to obtain a report. The matter is listed on 3 December 2026.
What it means for you: If a trial court has heard arguments but has not pronounced its order for a long time, the law offers a remedy. A litigant can approach the High Court seeking a direction for early disposal. The ruling also highlights the staffing shortages in district courts, which is a reminder to plan for realistic timelines in litigation. Related practice area: High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If you would like to understand how any of these developments affects your situation, you can book a session through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.