Anwar Ali vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 7749 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 41 of 2019
 
Applicant :- Anwar Ali
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2019

1. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant(Anwar Ali), learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Stamp reporter has reported 1461+38 =1499 days delay in filing the appeal.

3. The explanation has been offered for such huge delay in paragraph nos.2,3 & 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, which are quoted as under:-

"2. That, this is the first criminal appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. being moved on behalf of the appellant before this Hon'ble Court against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2013 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Room No.1, Siddharth Nagar in Session Trial No.22 of 2012 (State versus Smt. Hasrunnisha & others), arising out of Case Crime No.1188/2011, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, IPC & section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mohana, District Siddharth Nagar. No other criminal appeal or any petition has ever been filed or is pending except this criminal appeal before this Hon'ble Court.

3. That, on 13.11.2011 one F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant against the opposite party nos.2 to 4 in Case Crime No.1188/2011, under sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC & section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mohana, District Siddharth Nagar.

4. That, after investigation the police has submitted charge sheet and the charge were framed against the opposite party nos.2 to 4, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34, IPC & section 3/4 D.P. Act, on 09.05.2012 and trial commenced."

4. We do not find that the above quoted paragraphs offered sufficient explanation for delay. Additionally, the Government Appeal No.1842 of 2014(State of U.P. Vs. Hasrunnisha & others) has already been dismissed by this Court vide detailed judgment dated 05.05.2014. As such, we do not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter. We find that much before filing of the present appeal Government Appeal has already been dismissed, that too about five years ago. The present application was filed in the year 2019, whereas the Government Appeal has already dismissed in the year 2014. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to condone such huge delay and the explanation to the Court as explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, does not offer any sufficient explanation.

5. Accordingly the delay condonation application stands rejected.

Re: Criminal Appeal

Since the delay condonation application has been rejected, consequently this appeal stands dismissed.

Re: Criminal Misc. Leave Application

As already held by this Court in number of cases that leave application filed under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is not required in the appeal filed by the victim under section 372 Cr.P.C. like the present appeal. A reference may be made to the order dated 04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. No.123 of 2021(Rita Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another). As such, the application for leave to appeal stands rejected as not maintainable and / or not required.

Order Date :- 22.7.2022/VKG