Imran Hashmi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3014 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Imran Hashmi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 January, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1962
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28326 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Imran Hashmi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Maurya
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 01.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Azamgarh, in Case No.210199 of 2022 (Imran Hashmi Vs. Shama Hasmi and Others), under Section 126 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Saraimir, District- Azamgarh, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 126 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 is wife of the applicant and opposite party nos.3 & 4 are minor children of applicant and they have filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against applicant, which was decided by ex-parte judgment dated 17.03.2021 granting maintenance to opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4. The applicant has filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the said ex-parte judgment dated 17.03.2021, which was pending before the Family Court. It was submitted that on 01.12.2023 an adjournment was sought on behalf of applicant but his adjournment application was rejected and the case of applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed due to non-appearance of the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. Perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party nos.3 & 4 are children of applicant. The said opposite parties have filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was decided by ex-parte judgment dated 17.03.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Azamgarh, granting maintenance to the said opposite parties. It appears that applicant has filed an application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to recall the said ex-parte judgment, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2023, holding that applicant is not appearing since last several dates. It was shown that on 01.12.2023 an application seeking adjournment was sought on behalf of applicant, which was rejected by the said Family Court by separate order dated 01.12.2023 and that in the impugned order no reference has been made about the said adjournment application. It is always the endeavour of the Courts to decide the case between the parties on merits. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts of the matter, it appears that the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 is not in accordance with law and thus liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 is set aside and the case of applicant under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. [Criminal Misc. Cases/210199/2022] is restored. The Family Court concerned shall decide the case by granting one effective opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously in accordance with law.

8. With aforesaid observations, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

Order Date :- 6.1.2025

SP/-/RKM