Allahabad High Court
Aman Sinha vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 11 June, 2024
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:103185
Court No. - 45 A.F.R.
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13215 of 2024
Applicant :- Aman Sinha
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Heard Shri S. M. Faraz I. Kazmi, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 414/2023-1190/2023 (Aman Sinha Vs. Ankit Tandan and others), whereby criminal revision preferred by the applicant has been dismissed in default.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially applicant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 herein, which was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc. Application No. 935 of 2022 and against which order the applicant preferred criminal revision challenging the order dated 07.07.2023 but the said revision has been dismissed in default by the impugned order herein.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned revisional court dismissing the revision in default is against the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments and he placed reliance upon the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. & Another [Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5298/2023), decided on 11.08.2023], wherein in paras-4 to 7 it has been observed as under:
"4. We have carefully gone through the impugned order. It would reveal that the learned counsel for the appellant as also the appellant were absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. The order would further reveal that after noting their absence, the Court perused the records and ultimately passed the order impugned. However, the order does not reflect consideration of the case on merits. In other words, it is a non-reasoned order. When an adverse order would affect the personal liberty of a person, the fact that he is a convict cannot be a reason to deprive him of fair treatment in the matter of consideration of his revision petition in the manner prescribed by this Court, as the law laid down by this Court in that regard is binding on all Courts by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the decision in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar : (2007) 7 SCC 623, a Two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule laid down by this Court that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed for default would also apply to criminal revisions. The reference thus made was to the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. : (1996) 4 SCC 720. In Bani Singh's case (supra), this Court held thus:-
"14. ...... The plain language of Section 385 makes it clear that if the appellate court does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it 'must' call for the record and Section 386 mandates that after the record is received, the appellate court may dispose of the appeal after hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are consistent with the material on record. The law, therefore, does not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for default or non-prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the record......"
6. We are in perfect agreement with the view taken by the Two-Judge Bench in Madan Lal Kapoor's case (supra) and, therefore, even in the absence of a party or his counsel, a revision petition calls for consideration on merits in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition.
7. In that view of the matter, without making any observation on the merits, we remand this matter to be considered anew. Taking note of the fact that the revision petition is of the year 2017, we request the Hon'ble High Court to consider the revision petition expeditiously."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Thapar and others [Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3303 of 2006), decided on 31.08.2007], wherein in paras-3 to 6 it has been observed as under:
"3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2000 dated August 8, 2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein by the order which reads thus;
"In spite of notice, nobody appears for the petitioner today. Crl. Rev. P. 42/2000 is accordingly dismissed in default for non-prosecution."
4. The matter relates to administration of criminal justice. As held by this Court, a criminal matter cannot be dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits. Only on that ground the appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. There is, however, an additional reason also. Earlier when the petition was dismissed, the aggrieved appellant approached this Court and in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2002 a two-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated February 22, 2002 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and observed that the matter should be decided by the High Court after application of mind and by passing a reasoned order. Unfortunately, in the impugned order, there are no reasons and the merits have not been considered at all.
6. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court. The High Court will decide the matter on merits. Since the matter is very old, we request the High Court to decide it as early as possible preferably within a period of four months."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, thus, submits that in view of the ration laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the above submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 does not reflect consideration of case on merits by which criminal revision preferred by applicant has been dismissed in default by the revisional court. Thus, this Court, in agreement with the observations made in the aforesaid judgments cited above, thinks it appropriate to set aside the impugned order herein.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 414/2023-1190/2023 (Aman Sinha Vs. Ankit Tandan and others) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned revisional court for passing fresh orders.
10. With the above observations/ directions the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 11.6.2024
Mustaqeem.
