Allahabad High Court
Shiv Pal Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 1 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78672
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33474 of 2015
Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Even in revised call none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 although the name of Sri Laxman Singh is appearing in the list.
3. At the very outset, legal argument has been raised for challenging the summoning orders issued by learned Special Judge, (D.A.A.) Jalaun at Orai.
4. It is the case of the applicants that applicants are permanent resident of Kanpur Nagar but without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C., which cost mandate for the concerned court for exercising its jurisdiction for issuing summoning or taking cognizance in respect of the person residing out of their territorial jurisdiction.
5. In the first instance the direction may be made in qua to enquire the matter. In the said matter without complying the provisions contained under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate directly to take cognizance by way of summoning the applicants vide order dated 04.09.2015.
6. Considering the same facts and arguments, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already stayed the proceeding at the admission stage itself vide order dated 05.11.2015.
7. For substantiating the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant, he relied upon the case rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 SCC 488 decided on 3.12.2012.
8. By way of perusal of the record it is evident that even after filing vakalatanama on behalf of opposite party no.2, no counter affidavit has been preferred on his behalf.
9. In absence of learned counsel for opposite party, even in the revised call, I have no other option except to proceed in the instant matter for deciding only on the basis of the pleadings and documents available on record.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted same thing that the matter cannot be adjourned only at the behest of non presence of learned counsel for opposite party no.2 even in the revised call and no counter affidavit has been preferred till today even after laps of about nine years.
11. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant seems to be justified and the same is squarely covered with the judgment of National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (supra).
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, proceedings in pursuance to summoning order dated 04.09.2015 along with the same order passed by learned Special Judge (D.D.A.) Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 115 o f 2013 (Smt. Gita Vs. Satya Pal and others) under Section 383, 345, 504, IPC are hereby set aside. However, it is open for the learned concerned Court to pass fresh order in compliance to the provisions as available under Section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C.
13. According, the application disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Kumar Manish.
