Dismissed

Mandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2018CRLRD/774/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the court rejected a plea to condone a 315-day delay in filing a revision, holding depression insufficient. In the main criminal revision regarding maintenance and property attachment based on a decree, the court dismissed the plea, holding that genuineness of a compromise cannot be tested in revision.

What did the court decide?

Delay condonation application rejected; criminal revision dismissed.

Mandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 774 of 2016

¶3

In Re. : Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 400264 of 2016 (Under Section 5 of Limitation Act)

¶4

Revisionist :- Mandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mansoor Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None is present from the side of opposite party.

¶7

Heard Sri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶8

By way of instant application, the applicant-revisionist has prayed to condone the delay of 315 days in filing the revision.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that due to depression, he could not file revision in time.

¶10

Cause shown for delay in filing the revision does not appear to be sufficient.

¶11

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is rejected .

¶12

Order Date :- 17.4.2018 I. Batabyal

¶13

Court No. - 28

¶14

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 774 of 2016 Revisionist :- Mandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mansoor Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui

¶15

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶16

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Maintenance Case No. 64 of 2015 under Section

¶17

125 Cr.P.C., decided on the basis of compromise 12 क and order dated 03.12.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Misc. Case No. 65 of 2016 under Section 128 Cr.P.C., by which order for attachment of movable and immovable properties of the revisionist was issued.

¶18

From the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the order has been passed on the basis of compromise.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that he has not entered into any compromise. Fabricated compromise has been prepared and filed in the court below.

¶20

The fact whether compromise is genuine or fabricated, cannot be decided by this court in revision. Remedy is available to the revisionist to file petition before the trial court to set aside the compromise decree.

¶21

In view of above, the instant revision is dismissed accordingly.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.4.2018 I. Batabyal

Mandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kamalia and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rukaiya Jamil and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Gopi Chand Vishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Kanti and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others