Dismissed

Satyaprakash Paswan v. State of U.P. and an 3OTHERS

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021A482/20031/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court dismissed Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking expeditious disposal of pending Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance proceedings, finding the applicant had failed to file written statement despite multiple opportunities and delays in costs deposit.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; directions for expedition in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings denied.

Satyaprakash Paswan Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20031 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Satyaprakash Paswan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And An 3others Counsel for Applicant :- Raghawendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia to decide the Case No. 443 of 2014 (Saroj Devi Vs. Suryaprakash Paswan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., expeditiously.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided ex-parte against the applicant and the applicant has moved the application to set aside the ex-parte order and accordingly vide order dated 7.6.2018 the application of the applicant was allowed and the exparte order was set aside and since then the file is at the stage of filing written statement.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant.

¶9

On perusal of the record, it is found that the applicant Suryaprakash Paswan is the opposite party no.2 in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a copy of order-sheet is Annexure-5 to the affidavit, which reveals that Saroj Deviopposite party no.2 moved the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was registered on 25.01.2016 and this application was decided ex-parte vide order dated 27.11.2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia.

¶10

The applicant-Satyaprakash Paswan moved the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which was disposed of vide order dated 7.6.2018. Thereafter several dates were fixed, on behalf of opposite party the cost was not deposited and the order dated 7.6.2018 was complied on 4.1.2019 i.e. after a lapse of 7 months, thereafter date for written statement was fixed; several opportunities were given to the applicant to file W.S. but the same was not filed. The conduct of applicant shows that the applicant himself is not willing to get the case decided expeditiously.

¶11

In view of above, the application U/s 482 CrP.C. deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 5.1.2021

¶13

Prajapati

Satyaprakash Paswan v. State of U.P. and an 3OTHERS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyaprakash Paswan v. State of U.P. and an 3OTHERS

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

Deepak Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhushan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghavendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Maurya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another