Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Balpreet Singh - Revisionist
Vs.
State of U.P. And Another - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. -1794 of 2017
Decided On : 08-10-2018
For the Revisionist : Sharique Ahmed, Nitin Sharma
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for courts to adopt a pragmatic approach in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the duty of the courts to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Delay Condonation - Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the criminal appeal against the ex parte order dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court referred to Article 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for condonation of delay in case the delay occurred due to pursuing a wrong legal remedy. The court also considered various judgments, including Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. M.S.T. Katiji; 1987 (2) SCC 107, and State of Nagaland Vs. A.O. Lipok; 2005 (3) SCC 752, to emphasize the power of courts to condone delay to do substantial justice. The court highlighted the duty of the courts to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice, and the need to adopt a pragmatic approach in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2, and they had a son. The opposite party no.2 initiated criminal proceedings against the revisionist, leading to an ex parte order dated 11th March, 2015. The revisionist filed a delay condonation application for filing a criminal appeal against the ex parte order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist had not been diligent in pursuing the criminal proceedings initiated against him, and the explanation offered for condonation of delay was not sufficient. However, the court allowed the criminal revision, directing the court below to hear the appeal filed by the revisionist on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the revisionist submitting a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before a specified date.
Issues: The issues involved the delay condonation application, the diligence of the revisionist in pursuing the criminal proceedings, and the sufficiency of the explanation for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to adopt a pragmatic approach in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the duty of the courts to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice.
Final Decision: The present criminal revision was allowed, and the impugned order dated 30th March, 2017 passed by the court below was set aside. The court below was directed to hear the appeal filed by the revisionist on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the revisionist submitting a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before a specified date.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Misra, J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 30th March, 2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 213 of 2016 (Balpreet Singh vs. State of U.P. & Others), whereby the delay condonation application (Paper No.4 B) filed by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the criminal appeal against the ex parte order dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1721 of 2014 (Smt. Charanjeet Kaur vs. Balpreet Singh & Others) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Anwarganj, District Kanpur Nagar, has been rejected.
2. Mr. Sharique Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S.M.A. Abdy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 were heard in length and detail.
3. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 14th May, 2006. From the wedlock and co-habitation of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2, one son, namely, Ishan was born. Subsequently, it appears that the relationship with the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 became incompatible and reached a point of no return.
4. Faced with despair and destitution, the opposite party no.2 initiated criminal proceedings against the revisionist by filing complaint dated 19th November, 2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 6758 of 2013 (Smt. Charanjeet Kaur vs. Balpreet Singh). Vide order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar the revisionist was summoned under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. in the above mentioned complaint case.
5. Subsequently, the opposite party no.2 filed D.V. Petition dated 3rd December, 2014, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1721 of 2014 (Smt. Charanjeet Kaur vs. Balpreet Singh & Others) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming relief under Sections 12, 17, 19, 20B, 22 and 23 of the aforesaid Act. The said complaint case came to be allowed ex parte by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 11th March, 2015.
6. By means of the said order dated 11th March, 2015, the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2005”) by the opposite party no.2 was allowed ex parte. The revisionist was restrained from making any contact with the opposite party no.2 and further restrained from committing any violence against the opposite party no.2. The revisionist was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance and a sum of Rs. 20 lacs towards compensation to the opposite party no.2. Upon failure to deposit the said amount within a period of one month, the revisionist was required to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the aforesaid amount.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 11th March, 2015, the revisionist preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 22087 of 2015 (Balpreet Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another) before this Court. Ultimately the aforesaid criminal misc. application came to be disposed of finally vide order dated 11th April, 2016, whereby the revisionist was granted liberty to avail the remedy of appeal, as provided under Section 29 of the Act 2005. For ready reference the order dated 11th April, 2016 passed by this Court in the aforesaid criminal misc. application is reproduced herein-under:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.3.2015 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1721 of
