Dismissed

Surendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019A482/43524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case quashed an application seeking to quash orders recalling a dismissal u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the claim of illegality in restoring the application without a hearing, noting that the applicant failed to deposit required costs, holding he cannot benefit from his own fault. Proceedings were remanded for expediting.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of impugned orders dismissed; Principal Judge directed to expedite proceedings and decide within four months.

Surendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43524 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav,Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pratmesh Upadhyay holding brief of Sri Subham Yadav, counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶6

Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 27.8.2019 and 28.8.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur in Crl. Misc.Application no. 120 of 2019 (Lalmunni vs. Surendra).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 27.8.2019 whereby order dated 1.11.2018 dismissing the application of opposite party no. 2 was recalled without affording proper opportunity to the applicant and same suffers from patent illegality. He further submits that proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. were instituted by opposite party no. 2 in the year 2014 and he has been facing agony of prolonged proceedings since 2014 and therefore, without hearing the applicant the court should not be recalled the order.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA has pointed out that proceedings were instituted in 2014 and despite service of notice the applicant did not appear before the court and application was allowed exparte vide order dated 18.7.2018. In this behalf recall application was moved by the applicant and same was allowed subject to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- on 24.9.2018 fixing 1.11.2018 for evidence. From the impugned order it appears that said amount was not deposited by the applicant and on 1.11.2018 on account of some personal difficulty as stated by counsel for opposite party no. 2 she got late to appear before the court on account of which case was dismissed in default. The said order was challenged by her in Application u/s 482 No. 1443 of 2019 in which the Court vide order dated 17.1.2019 directed the court concerned to decide afresh in accordance with law.

¶9

I have perused the impugned order. The same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. I do not find any force in the submission made by counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not heard while restoring the application and the same has

¶10

been duly considered by the court in the impugned order. Besides it, the applicant himself was a defaulter that he did not deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- and thus he cannot not take advantage of his own fault.

¶11

In my opinion, till the amount is deposited by him proceeding cannot be restored and thus the court could not have dismissed application for want of prosecution on 1.11.2018.

¶12

The present application is dismissed.

¶13

However, as the matter is pending for the past five years, the Principal Judge is directed to expedite the proceeding and decide the same within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶14

Office is directed to communicate the order to the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Dhirendra/

Surendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teetu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Irshad Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Rohani Raj Gaur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and Another