Bhanu Pratap vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1664 of 2024

¶3

Bhanu Pratap

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 89

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

Case is called out in the revised list, no one appears for the opposite party no.2 despite the fact that the notice has already been served upon her as per the office report dated 17th October, 2025.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29th February, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 54 of 2023 (Bhanu Pratap Vs. Kiran & Others), whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act along with appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case No. 1149 of 2016 (Smt. Kiran Nishad Vs. Bhanu Pratap & Others) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "D.V. Act"), which has been allowed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2022 awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 towards monthly maintenance allowance and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation. Against the said judgment, the revisionist filed an

¶12

CRLR No. 1664 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act along with delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, which was numbered as 54 of 2023. Since the revisionist was suffering form Lumbosacral Degenerative disc Disease, he made an application on 28th February, 2024 for adjournment of the hearing of the case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is at page no. 45 of the paper book. Thought the said application for adjournment of the hearing of the case has been accepted by office of the appellate court but on the order-sheet of dated 28th February, 2024, which is at page 48 of the paper book, there is no mention of filing of such application and the case was fixed for 29th February, 2024 for order and ultimately the impugned order has been passed on the next day i.e. 29th February, 2024. He next submits that since the impugned order has been passed without deciding the application of the revisionist dated 28th February, 2024 for adjournment of the case, the same cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside, as the same is ex parte.

¶15

On the other-hand, initially the A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present criminal revision but he could not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. From the records it is an admitted position that the revisionist has filed an application on 28th February, 2024 before the appellate court for adjournment of the case and the same has also not been mentioned in the order dated 28th February, 2024, inasmuch as the appellate court without deciding the said application has passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act.

¶17

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate court has adopted hyper technical view in rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also without deciding the application of the revisionist dated 28th February, 2024 for adjournment of the case.

¶18

Consequently, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The same is, hereby, set aside.

¶19

CRLR No. 1664 of 2024

¶20

3

¶21

The matter is remanded to the appellate court to decide the application of the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act afresh, in accordance with the law and the observations made above, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶22

The present criminal revision is allowed subject to the observations made above.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

November 13, 2025 Sushil/-

¶25

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhanu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Pushplata vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumari vs State of U.P. and Another

Farha vs State of U.P. and Another

Rambhaj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Dutt Chaubey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishwakarma Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another