This criminal revision challenged an order allowing the revisionist to recall a section 126 CrPC application subject to payment of Rs.25,000/-. The High Court rejected the claim that the cost was exorbitant and dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34548
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 473 of 2024
Revisionist :- Saleem
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bahar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this criminal revision filed against the order dated 19.3.2024 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family court, Court No.2, Sitapur in Misc. Civil Case No.1285 of 2022 Saleem versus Maisarjahan whereby the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed by the court below at the cost of Rs.25,000/-, and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the cost of Rs.25,000/- is exhorbitant and he is not able to pay it.
3. A perusal of the order shows that an application under section 125 CrPC was filed in the year 2019 which was decided ex parte vide order dated 8.3.2022 after notices to the revisionist were served and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4000/per month as maintenance. For non-compliance of the order, recovery warrant to the tune of Rs.1,28,000/- was issued and it was only thereafter that the revisionist appeared before the court below. He then filed a recall application under section 126 CrPC along with an application for condonation of delay which has been allowed and the revisionist has been permitted to participate in the proceedings subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- which in the opinion of this Court is not exorbitant.
4. I find no illegality in the order impugned. The revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024 kkb/
Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court below was correct in allowing condonation of delay for an application under section 126 CrPC in exchange for a substantial cost.
Whether the cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed for condonation of delay is exorbitant.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Saleem
State of U.P.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
Krishna Kumar Baranwal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
