Shatrohan vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9123 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 211 of 2015
 

 
Revisionist :- Shatrohan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Shankar Singh,Ramendra Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arun Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

Learned AGA for the State is present. None present for the revisionist.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2015, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Barabanki, in Session Trial No.135 of 2003, by means of which the opposite party nos.2 to 8 have been acquitted, alongwith delay condonation application.

Application under section 5 of Limitation ACt is moved on the ground that he is very poor and helpless persons has no source of income could not mannage money for filing the revision within time.

The income certificate of the revisionist has not been filed in support of his contention, hence there is no ground to condoned the delay in filing the present revision.

Learned A.G.A raises preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C as the present revision is maintainable as an appeal under Section 19 sub-clause 4 of the Family Court Act, hence, the revision may be dismissed as not maintainable. Sub-clauses 4 and 5 of the Family Court Act relevant for the purpose are reproduced below:-

"(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.]

[(5)] Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court."

A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the controversy at hand in the case of Liaqat Hussain Vs. Smt Jainab Parveen being First Appeal Defective No. 300 of 2020 vide order dated 03.12.2020 has held as follows:

"Thus the remedy against the order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. has been specifically provided under Section 19(4) of the Act, which confers powers on the High Court to examine the correctness, legality or propriety to the order passed by the Family Court. When the Family Court is dealing with the proceeding under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. exercisable by the Magistrate of the first class in such contingency criminal revision would be maintainable against both interim as well as final order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C."

In view of the above, discussions, and considering the facts that in the application under section 5 of Limitation Act no satisfactory reason is mentioned in the accompanying affidavit. The delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is dismissed. As such the revision is also dismissed as not maintainable.

Let the lower court record be sent back to the lower court concerned alongwith copy of this order necessary action.

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

Order Date :- 28.3.2023

VKG