Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9212 of 2021 Applicant :- Amit Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Additional Principle Judge, Family Court No.4, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No.263 of 2013, (Smt. Vandana Vs. Amit Agrawal), whereby delay condonation application filed along with restoration application by opposite parties-2 and 3 has been allowed.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. Explanation offered by opposite party-2 regarding her absence from Court on the date fixed is neither sufficient nor truthful. It is further sought to be urged that opposite party-
2 is already appearing in proceedings under Section- 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, the explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay is not sustainable as same is neither sufficient nor truthful. Consequently, impugned order dated 03.02.2021 passed by court below is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. has invited attention of Court to the order dated 20.03.2018 and on basis thereof, he contends that on aforesaid date, applicant himself was also not present before court below. As such, no equity has passed on in favour of applicant. Apart from above, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also on the nature of litigation, discretion exercised by Court cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary as a judgement, after hearing the parties, is far-far better than a judgement of default.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that explanation offered by opposite party-2 for seeking condonation of delay are sufficient as well as truthful. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by court below.
For the facts and reasons noted above, no good ground exists to entertain this application.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Saif