Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Jalan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 705 of 2021
Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Jalan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vandeep Nath,Sourabh Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2021 (Amit Kumar Jalan Vs. State of U. P. and others) as well as order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 4008 of 2020 (Dipti Jalan Vs. Amit Kumar Jalan and others), under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Phase-2, NOIDA, district Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the operation and effect of both the orders aforesaid.
Heard Sri Sorabh Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri D. S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge concerned against the order dated 29.01.2021 passed in Misc. Case No. 408 of 2020 pending before the court of IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Although appeal has been admitted but the stay application moved for the stay of the recovery proceeding has been rejected. It was next contended that revisionist is ready to deposit the entire amount under protest. Thus, lower appellate court be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 argued that no such relief could be granted to the revisionist for depositing the amount disclosed in the recovery warrant under protest. It was also argued that opposite party no. 2 is ready and willing to cooperate with the lower appellate court to decide the appeal pending before it expeditiously.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and going through the entire record and also the nature of order passed in the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 and comparing the same with the prayer made in the revision no such relief could be granted to the revisionist for deposit of the entire amount disclosed in the recovery warrant under protest. No illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order. However, second submission raised on behalf of the revisionist may be allowed. Lower appellate court may be directed to decide the appeal pending before it expeditiously fixing short dates.
Thus, revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself. However, lower appellate court is hereby directed to decide the appeal pending before it against the order dated 29.01.2021 expeditiously fixing short dates. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the lower appellate court.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
Sachdeva
