Amit Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 875 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 287 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar,Suresh Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Sushil Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present revision has been filed with the prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 02.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2021, order dated 15.12.2018 and order dated 13.12.2017 passed in Case No.365 of 2017 including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the case under Section 12 of D.V. Act.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party No.2 on 16.12.2015 and due to some matrimonial dispute, opposite party No.2 left the house of the revisionist and thereafter, on 22.03.2017, application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was moved which was registered as Case No.365 of 2017. He further submitted that maintenance order was passed on 13.12.2017. He further submitted that recall application was moved by the revisionist which was numbered as 22 Kha dated 03.12.2018 but due to inadvertent mistake in the prayer clause of the application, date of order in questions is mentioned as 25.09.2017 & 03.12.2017 in place of 03.12.2017. Thereafter, the aforesaid application was rejected on 15.12.2018 with the observation that order dated 03.12.2017 is not available on the record and thereafter, on the written advice, against the order dated 15.12.2018 an appeal was filed which was also rejected. He also submitted that kind indulgence of this Court is necessary on the ground that in case, due to fault of the lawyer, client will not be suffered.

Learned counsel for the revisionist conceded this fact that a fresh application was to be filed before the court below with the correct prayer.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the revisionist and submitted that the application in question was duly signed by the revisionist and he is a qualified engineer, therefore, this ground is not maintainable to the applicant, but he does not oppose the prayer of the revisionist counsel that he is having option to move a fresh application before the court below with the appropriate prayer.

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and going through the impugned order as well as other documents annexed with the revision and the application No.22 Kha dated 03.12.2018, the revision is hereby disposed of with a liberty to the revisionist to move a fresh application before the court below with the adequate prayer. In case, any such application is moved, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, the revision if finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 8.4.2022

S. Shivhare