Allahabad High Court
Shahabuddin vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3443 of 2021
Revisionist :- Shahabuddin
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed to set-aside the order dated 16.10.2021, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Case No.123/11/2016 (Jarina and others Vs. Shahabuddin), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Further prayed for direction to the court below to provide one more opportunity to the revisionist to cross examine the opposite party no.2.
3. Opposite party no.2 (applicant no.1 in the court below) is the wife of revisionist (opposite party in the court below), while opposite party nos.3 to 4 are their issues(applicant nos.2 to 4 in the court below). Opposite party nos.2 to 4 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, which has been decided by the trial court by impugned judgment dated 16.10.2021.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the case was fixed for 27.09.2021, on that date opposite party no.2 was present, but the counsel for the the revisionist was not present. The learned trial court fixed 08.10.2021 for judgment, after hearing the opposite party no.2 and also directed that revisionist may submit his argument up to 06.10.2021. On 06.10.2021 the presiding officer was on leave, hence the matter was proceeded for 08.10.2021. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the local counsel for the revisionist was not present on 27.09.2021 so he could not cross examine the opposite party no.2, Jarina. He submitted that an opportunity be provided to him to cross examine the opposite party no.2. The impugned order dated 16.10.2021 is ex-parte and it will cause prejudice to the revisionist.
5. Aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist is not in consonance with the record. It appears from the perusal of the order sheet, annexure no.4 that on 21.09.2021 the case was fixed for evidence, on that date an application was moved by the revisionist for adjournment, which was rejected and matter was proceeded for argument on 25.09.2021. As 25.09.2021 and 26.09.2021 were holidays, hence the case was taken up on the next date i.e. 27.09.2021 and on that date the revisionist and opposite part no.2 were present. The trial court heard the argument of opposite party no.2 and posted the matter for judgment on 08.10.2021, providing that the revisionist may submit his argument up to 06.10.2021. On 06.10.2021 the presiding officer was on leave, thereafter, the case was again taken up on 08.10.2021, on that dated the counsel for the revisionist was present and submitted his argument. After hearing his argument the case was fixed for judgment on 16.10.2021 and judgment was pronounced on 16.10.2021. It is also clear from the perusal of the impugned judgment that revisionist has cross examined the witness produced from the side of the opposite party no.2, hence the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that an opportunity for cross examination of opposite party no.2 be granted, has no ground, as the witness has already been cross examined by the revisionist. The revisionist has not move any application before the trial court for providing any opportunity of producing his evidence after 21.09.2021, when his adjournment application was rejected, instead his counsel, took part in the proceeding and submitted his argument, thereafter, the case has been decided. So impugned judgment and order is not ex-parte, as alleged. There is no other ground to challenge the impugned judgment and order.
7. Accordingly, the criminal revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2022
VKG
