Allahabad High Court
Ankit Sharma And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94515
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 157 of 2025
Revisionist :- Ankit Sharma And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manju Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Tyagi,G.A.,Kapil Tyagi
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Order On Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application 1 of 2025.
1. This criminal revision is reported to be beyond time by 1 day.
2. The revisionists have filed this application for condonation of delay along with affidavit.
3. I have perused the contents of the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision.
4.Sri Ankit Kumar Singh Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 does not have any objection if the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
5. I find that the delay in filing this criminal revision has been sufficiently explained.
6. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.
7. The office is directed to allot a regular number to this criminal revision.
Order On Memo Of Revision
1. Heard Ms. Preeti Chaudhari and Ms. Manju Yadav, learned counsels appearing for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Ankit Kumar Singh Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hapur in Misc. Criminal Case No.138 of 2024 (Ankit Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, had been rejected and consequently, the appeal had also been dismissed.
3. The revisionists through this criminal revision have also challenged the dated order dated 9.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Second/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Complaint Case No. 181 of 2021 (Smt. Archana Sharma vs Ankit Sharma & Ors.) whereby, the trial court in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 had awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of Opposite Party No.2. and further direction had been issued to pay her lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/-.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that they were not aware about the ex-parte order dated 9.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Second/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Complaint Case No. 181 of 2021 and they came to know about the said order only on 4.1.2024 and thereafter they examined the record of the trial court and applied for certified copy of the order dated 9.11.2022 which was given to them on 27.3.2024. It has further been contended that the revisionists immediately filed an appeal as contemplated under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hapur along with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5. Ms. Preeti Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hapur, without making proper consideration of the reasons of delay narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, straightaway had rejected the said appeal vide order dated 10.9.2024 and consequently, the appeal filed by the revisionists also stood dismissed.
6.Ms. Preeti Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has further argued that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the court, while dealing with the delay in filing the appeal, must take lenient view so that the substantial justice may not suffer. She further submits that even otherwise, it is apparent from the record of the case that the delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained but even then without considering the said explanation, the appellate court had rejected the application for condonation of delay.
7.Ms. Preeti Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has submitted that it would be in the interest of justice, if this Court may set aside the order dated 10.9.2024 impugned in this criminal revision and may remand the matter to the appellate court to consider and decide the appeal filed by the revisionists, on merits. She further submits that since the revisionists are under obligation to pay reasonable amount under the order passed by the trial court, the revisionists are ready to deposit Rs.90,000/- before the appellate court and that amount may be released in favour of Opposite Party No.2.
8.Sri Ankit Kumar Singh Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that he has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal by the revisionists is condoned by this Court and the appellate court is directed to hear and decide the appeal of the revisionists on merits provided the revisionists deposit Rs.90,000/- before the appellate court and that amount may be released in favour of Opposite Party No.2 immediately.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revisionists have filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against an ex-parte order dated 9.11.2022. The revisionists, while filing the appeal, have explained the delay in filing the appeal in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay. The trial court, while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, has not considered the issues in its correct perspective as the order dated 9.11.2022 is an ex-parte order and for the first time, the revisionists came to know about the said order on 4.1.2024.
10. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has given his consent that the delay in filing the appeal by the revisionists may be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the learned appellate court to decide the appeal filed by the revisionists on merits.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hapur in Misc. Criminal Case No.138 of 2024 (Ankit Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) is hereby set aside. The delay in filing the appeal by the revisionists under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is condoned. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Hapur is hereby directed to hear and decide the appeal filed by the revisionists under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on merits provided the revisionists/appellants deposit Rs.90,000/- before the appellate court within 20 days from today.
12. It is also provided that the aforesaid amount deposited by the revisionists/appellants shall be released in favour of Opposite Party No.2, forthwith.
Order Date :- 29.5.2025
Gaurav/Mini
