Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27147 of 2017 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 passed by Session Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 64 of 2017 (Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P.), whereby application of the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that ex-parte order under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been passed on 02.02.2017 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 5/11-2016 (Smt. Anju v. Arvind Kumar and others). The applicant has filed recall application to recall the ex-parte order dated 02.02.2017, but the same was rejected on 03.05.2017.
The applicant has filed appeal with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order without considering the fact on record, which is not sustainable.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that by order dated 02.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- for loss of property, physical and mental agony, and Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 from the date of order.
After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, I find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar as well as the impugned order 02.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar.
From the perusal of record, it reveals that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of evidence on record. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no abuse of process of court of law and accordingly, the application under Section 482 of the Code is liable to be rejected.
Resultantly, the instant application sans merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 I. Batabyal