Dismissed

Vikas Thakur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023CRLAD/50/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a delay condonation application in a criminal appeal. The court found the applicants' grounds, including a prior compromise, marriage, and the pandemic, insufficient to justify a delay of over four and a half years. Consequently, the appeal was barred by law and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The delay condonation application was rejected, and the criminal appeal was dismissed based on the bar of time.

Vikas Thakur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164703

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 50 of 2022 Appellant :- Vikas Thakur And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hans Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶4

Inre: Cr.Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2022.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on delay condonation application.

¶6

By moving this delay condonation application, the delay of 1659 days in filing the present appeal is prayed to be condoned. The grounds mentioned in the affidavit are that on 10.1.2017 the parties had arrived at a compromise, they had no knowledge of the present proceedings. There was marriage ceremony of the daughter of the appellants on 20.1.2020 and due to the pandemic of Covid-19, the appellants could not approach this court, hence, the prayer is made to condone the delay.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. did not oppose the prayer.

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it is found that the present appeal has been filed against the cogniznce order dated 31.1.2017 against which the appeal has been filed on 11.1.2022. The grounds taken for condoning the delay are the compromise arrived at between the parties, the marriage of the daughter of the appellant and the pandemic of covid-19.

¶9

The compromise was arrived between the parties on 10.1.2017. The impugned order was passed on 31.3.2017. The delay in filing the present appeal is of 1659 days. The grounds taken by the appellants are not sufficient to the satisfaction of the court.

¶10

The delay condonatoin application is rejected.

¶11

Order on appeal

¶12

As the delay condonaton application no. 1 of 2022 has been rejected, hence the appeal being barred of time is also dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.8.2023/Gss

¶14

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Thakur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Thakur and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sapna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chhaya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Jagdesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another