Dismissed¶17

Hausila Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023/228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 29; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC-LKO:43983; CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 228 of 2023; decided 7.7.2023 by Renu Agarwal, J.; Sections 397/401, 156(3), 125 Cr.P.C.; Domestic Violence Act; D.P. Act; delay condonation refused; counter-case; pressure tactics; misuse of process of law; F.I.R.; missing report; grand-son; family court; equally efficacious remedy; liberty to file complaint; Sultanpur; Gauriganj, Amethi; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the revisionist to avail the remedy of complaint before the Court concerned; any such complaint to be decided on its merits without going into the question of delay. ¶17

Hausila Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the revisionist to avail the remedy of complaint before the Court concerned; any such complaint to be decided on its merits without going into the question of delay.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the trial court — challenged on the ground that it did not consider the facts disclosed in the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. — should be set aside. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved only as a counter-case to the cases filed by opposite party No. 2, as a pressure tactic.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

No missing report was lodged anywhere by the revisionist; the matter is a counter-case filed by the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 against each other.

¶15

Key takeaways

The revisionist has an equally efficacious remedy of meeting his grand-son in the family court; the filing of the F.I.R. is a misuse of the process of law and the revision has no force.ratio¶15
No satisfactory reason was explained in the condonation of delay application; the application for condonation of delay as well as the revision are liable to be dismissed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 228 of 2023 under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., filed with a delay condonation application against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 of the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) first/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur. The revisionist sought setting aside of that order, contending that the trial court did not consider the facts disclosed in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (his grand-son missing and daughter-in-law, as alleged by him, living in adultery). Held, dismissing the revision and refusing condonation of delay: the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved only as a counter-case to the proceedings initiated by opposite party No. 2 — an F.I.R. under the Domestic Violence Act (case No. 818 of 2017, pending in FTC, Junior Division, Sultanpur), a maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (pending before the Family Judge, Sultanpur) and criminal case No. 4113 of 2028 under Section 323, 504, 506, 498-A and 3/4 D.P. Act (pending in Gauriganj, Amethi) — as a pressure tactic; no missing report was lodged anywhere by the revisionist; he had an equally efficacious remedy of meeting his grand-son in the family court; the filing of the F.I.R. was a misuse of the process of law; and no satisfactory reason for the delay was explained. Liberty granted to avail the remedy of complaint before the Court concerned, any such complaint to be decided on merits without going into the question of delay. (Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:43983

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 228 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Hausila Prasad Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 4 Others

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶8

Present Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is

¶9

filed along with delay condonation application against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) first/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, Haushila Prasad Singh Vs. Madhu Singh and Ors.

¶10

It is submitted that daughter-in-law (Madhu) of revisionist has lodged the F.I.R. against him under Domestic Violence Act, case No. 818 of 2017 and application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. also. It is further submitted that grand-son of present revisionist is missing and he could not trace out his grand-son and his daughter-in-law is living in adultry with one Prabhakar Singh and, therefore, the learned trial court did not consider the facts disclosed in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., hence prayed for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2023.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the revision on the ground that it is a

¶12

family dispute and equally efficacious remedy is available to the revisionist taking recourse of law, hence the revision is liable to be rejected.

¶13

I have the rival submissions and perused the materials brought on record.

¶14

From the perusal of application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. annexed as Annexure No. 3, it is apparent that criminal case No. 4113 of 2028 under Section 323, 504, 506, 498-A and 3/4 D.P. Act is pending in Gauriganj, Amethi and application under Section 125 Cr.P.c. is pending in Family Judge, Sultanpur. One more case bearing case No. 818 of 2017 is also pending in FTC, Junior Division, Sultanpur.

¶15

From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the present application is moved only as a counter case of the cases filed by opposite party No. 2 as a pressure tactics and also considering the fact that no missing report is lodged anywhere by the revisionist and it is a counter case filed by revisionist and opposite party No. 2 against each other and also considering the fact that the revisionist has equally efficacious remedy of meeting his grand-son in family court, therefore, filing of F.I.R. is a misuse of process of law, hence, the revision has no force and no satisfactory reason is explained in filing of the revision in condonation of delay application, hence, application for condonation of delay as well as revision is liable to be

¶16

dismissed.

¶17

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

¶18

However, it is open for the revisionist to avail remedy of complaint before the Court concerned. In the event any complaint is filed the same shall be decided on its merits without going into the question of delay.

¶19

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 7.7.2023

¶21

Karan

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hausila Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hausila Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaggu @ Masum Ali Vs State of U.P.

Madan Vs State of U.P.

Priya Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Vidya Sagar Vs State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Buddha @ Buddha Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 12 Others