In a single-line order dated 29/1/2018, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking restoration of a dismissal order under Section 125 CrPC made five years ago due to want of prosecution, rejecting reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Lajpat Rai.
Application for restoration is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Cr. Misc. Application 36/2018.
In
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1331/2011.
Govind Gupta S/o Shri Ramji Lal Gupta B/c Mahajan, R/o S-10, Parvati Nagar, Opposite Glass Factory, Shri Govindam Paints, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
Versus
Smt. Manju D/o Ramkrishna Kedawat W/o Shri Govind Gupta B/c Mahajan, R/o M.P.B. 36, Mahaveer Nagar-I, Kota, Raj.
For Petitioner(s) : Shri R.P. Garg
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
29/1/2018
Applicant-petitioner has filed this application seeking recalling of the order dated 27.2.2013.
Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that the application was liable to be allowed and the order dated 27.2.2017 was liable to be recalled whereby petition filed by the applicant-petitioner had been dismissed for want of prosecution. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lajpat Rai &
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Others AIR 1981 SC 1401 .
Applicant-petitioner had challenged the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. However, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition filed by the applicant-petitioner
was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.2.2013. However, the present application has been filed after about five years .Hence, no ground for recalling the order dated 27.2.2013 is made out.
I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner. However, the same fails to advance the case of the applicant-petitioner. Accordingly, application for restoration is dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mrg./53
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for recalling the dismissal order due to want of prosecution can be allowed after a lapse of five years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lajpat Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Others AIR 1981 SC 1401Explained¶14
Govind Gupta
Smt. Manju
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
