Dismissed¶16

Shahid Ali (Mohd. Shahid as Mentioned in Suit) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2025CRLR/535/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2025; Shahid Ali v. State of U.P. and 2 Others; dismissal for want of prosecution; non-compliance with deposit of Rs.50,000/- before Mediation and Conciliation Centre; interim order dated 16.05.2025 vacated; protection from coercive action withdrawn; maintenance-related dispute (respondent no.2); listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules; Rajnish Kumar, J.; order date 30.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

The revision is dismissed for want of prosecution, the Court being of the view that the revisionist is not interested in pursuing the matter after his failure to comply with the deposit direction. ¶16

Shahid Ali (Mohd. Shahid as Mentioned in Suit) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 535 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Shahid Ali (Mohd. Shahid As Mentioned In Suit)

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶7

Case called out.

¶8

None is present for the parties except learned A.G.A.

¶9

As per office report dated 09.07.2025, the revisionist has not deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/-. This Court by means of order dated 16.05.2025 had provided that in case the revisionist deposits Rs.50,000/- before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow within two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist in pursuance of the impugned order.

¶10

On 10.07.2025, as the revisionist had not deposited Rs.50,000/-, this Court had passed the following order :-

¶11

"This case is listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules as the revisionist has not complied the order dated 16.05.2025 and he has not deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the Mediation & Conciliation Centure of this Court. However, it appears that it has wrongly been listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules because revisionist and respondent nos. 2 and 3 had put in appearance on previous date.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is not in a position to deposit the aforesaid amount whereas learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3, who is present alongwith respondent no.2, submits that the revisionist has sufficient means but he deliberately does not want to deposit the amount and pay the maintenance. He also got an interim order on the pretext that there is a possibility of settlement in the matter and the respondent no.2 is ready for mediation, so that the matter may be settled for all the time to come in case revisionist deposits the amount as fixed by this Court.

¶13

As prayed by learned counsel for the revisionist, list on 30.07.2025 on which date respondent no.2 need not appear again.

¶14

In case the revisionist fails to deposit the aforesaid amount, the

¶15

appropriate order shall be passed by this Court. However, it is made clear that the revisionist is not entitled to get any benefit of the interim order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court in any proceedings including execution."

¶16

In view of above, it appears that the revisionist is not interested in pursuing the matter. Thus, the revision is dismissed for want of prosecution .

¶17

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶18

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 30.7.2025 dk/

¶20

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

Shahid Ali (Mohd. Shahid as Mentioned in Suit) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid Ali (Mohd. Shahid as Mentioned in Suit) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Geeshan Warsi @ Shanu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Salman @ Sanu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Laxman Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sonam Thru. Her Husband Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Nandram @ Nandram Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another