Jairam Singh Bhadauria Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jairam Singh Bhadauria Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the court below was justified in rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. given his failure to file any objection or explain his non-appearance after his last appearance on 16.01.2023 and the unexplained delay in filing the application on 14.05.2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The court below's rejection of the Section 126(2) application rested on stated grounds: the revisionist was aware of the pendency of the case, filed no objection and assigned no reason for non-appearance after his last appearance on 16.01.2023 (despite his brother's death on 28.05.2022), and having received information of the ex parte order on 27.03.2024 filed his application only on 14.05.2024 without explaining the delay; the impugned order was passed on these grounds and this court finds no illegality in it.

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality in the order impugned; the petition is devoid of merits and the criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 172 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 16; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:8761), Jairam Singh Bhadauria (Revisionist) v. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department and 2 Others — DISMISSED by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. (Order Date 11.2.2025). The revision challenged the order dated 08.01.2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 8, Family Court, Lucknow, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1058/2024 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist's application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected. Held: the impugned order was properly passed because the revisionist, though aware of the pendency of the case, made his last appearance on 16.01.2023 (his brother having died on 28.05.2022) without filing any objection or assigning any reason for subsequent non-appearance, and though informed of the ex parte order on 27.03.2024, filed his Section 126(2) application only on 14.05.2024 without explaining the delay; no illegality was found in the order impugned and the petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. Caution: the judgment's concluding paragraph refers to the order as 'dated 18.01.2025' while the narrative paragraph gives the impugned order date as 08.01.2025; both dates appear in the text as printed.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8761

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 172 of 2025

Revisionist :- Jairam Singh Bhadauria Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Vishal Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with.

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

This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Court No.8, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.1058/2024, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. by which his application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Perused the record.

The operative part of the order dated 08.01.2025 is extracted below:-

" उभयपकककतककककपररप क यममपतननवललकनअवललकनककयन। पतनवललककअवललकनसकसपषहहककपनररदनरनअपनकपनररननममतममसवयमयहसवलकनर ककयनगयनहहककउसकममलपतनवललककजननकनरलरलववहउकबनदममउपससरतभल आयनरन।पनररदनरनकरनककयनगयनहहकककलरलननममउसककतबलयतखरनबहलगयल रलवकदननमक 28.04.2021 कलउसककमनतनककतरनकदनननक 28.05.2022 कलउसकक भनईककममतययहलगयल।इसकनरणवहवनदकककनयरवनकहयकममपकतभनगनहहकरपनयन। उसककनणरय 28.04 2021 ककजननकनरलकदनकक 2703.2024 कलहहयलजबवनकदनलनकउसक जररगकरजजसटटलकनणरयककपकतप क षतकक। यहननयहउलकखनलयहहककपनररपतनवललपरकदनननक 16:01 2023 कलअकतमबनर उपससरतआयन।पनररककभनईककममतययकदनकक 28.05.2022 कलहलगयलरल।परनतय पनररदनरनआपजतकदनकक 16.01.2023 कलभलदनजखलनहहककगयल।तरननतपतनवलल परअपनलअनयपससरकतकनकलईभलकनरणपनररदनरनदकररतनहहककयनगयनहह।पनररकक करनननयसनरपनररकलकनणरयककजननकनरलकदननमक 27.03.2024 कलहलगयलरल।परनतय उसककदनरनपनररननपतअनतगरतधनरन -126 (2) सलआरपलसलकदननमक 14.05.2024 कल पसतयतककयनगयनहह।उककवलमबकनभलकलईकनरणपसतयतनहहककयनगयनहह।अत पनररच म ककअपनलअनयपससरकतकनपयनरपकनरणदकररतकरनकममअसफलरहनहह। तदनयसनरपनररननपतकनगजसम०वल द -3 अनटतगतधनरन 126 (2) जफतनफफजदनरल / आपजत कनरसतककयकजननकयलगयहह।

आदकर पनररननपतकनगजसम०बल -3 अनटतगतधनरन 126 (2) जफतनफलजदनरल / आपजतकनरसत ककयनजनतनहह।

पतनवललकनयमननयसनरदनजखलदफतरहल। "

A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not disputed by the revisionist that he was aware about the pendency of the case before the court below. The revisionist appeared before the court below on the last time on 16.01.2023, his brother died on 28.05.2022 however, still on 16.01.2023 he has not filed any objection neither any reason was assigned by him for his nonappearance. The information regarding the ex parte order was also received by him on 27.03.2024 still an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by him on 14.05.2024 however, no reason for this delay could not explained by him, therefore, on these grounds the order dated 18.01.2025 appears to have been passed and hence I find no illegality in the order impugned, the petition being devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench