Dismissed

Mewa Lal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018A482/22979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order in a criminal complaint. The application was filed after a delay of over a year. The High Court held that the explanation provided by the applicants for the delay was neither sufficient nor truthful, rendering the application barred by laches.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mewa Lal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22979 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mewa Lal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

In compliance of the order dated 17.07.2018, a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicants has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rajeev Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 3025 of 2015 (Geeta Devi Vs. Mewa Lal and another) under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Saini, District-Kaushambi as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶8

This application has been filed after an expiry of a period of more than one year and one month from the date of passing of the summoning order dated 11.05.2017. Therefore, prima facie, this application is barred by laches.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit and on the basis thereof, he submits that the laches in filing the present application are liable to be ignored.

¶10

Paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is reproduced hereunder: "2. That summoning order was issued on 11.05.2017 and one police man came to the house of deponent and inform him then he contacted her local advocate Kamlesh Sharma and all the relevant paper were collected and then came to High Court and delay and latches in filing the 482 application against impugned summoning order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaushambi in complaint case no. 3025 of 2015 (Geeta Devi Vs. Mewa Lal and another) Under Section 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Saini, District Kaushambi may be condoned and may be heard and decided on

¶11

merits so that Justice may be done and/or to pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances existing in the present case."

¶12

From the perusal of the averments made in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit, it is explicitly clear that the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for explaining the laches in filing the present application is neither sufficient nor truthful.

¶13

For the reasons stated herein above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain this application. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 YK

Mewa Lal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mewa Lal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padam Chandra Goyal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Om and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ishak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and another

Bantu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faraien and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another