Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22510 of 2019 Applicant :- J.P. City Centre Private Ltd. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Meraj Ahmad Kha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 8.5.2019 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Case No. Nil of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 145/146 Cr.P.C.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order dated 8.5.2019 needs to be quashed because under Section 362 Cr.P.C. the trial court did not have power to recall the order dated 26.4.2019, which is at page 23.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order.
I have perused both the orders.
The following order was passed by the revisional court on 26.4.2019:-
"Case taken up.
Despite last opportunity, afforded on 1.4.20198, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist, on 19.4.2019 and today also learned counsel for the revisionist has moved adjournment application, which appears to be moved just to linger on the matter.
Adjournment application is rejected.
This criminal revision at the stage of admission is dismissed in default for want of prosecution."
The following order was passed by the revisional court on 8.5.2019:-
"Case taken up.
Learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned counsel for opposite parties are in attendance.
Heard.
Record which was summoned in default, at the admission stage, for want of prosecution, on dated 26.4.2019.
Restoration application 3A has been moved by revisionist for restoring criminal revision. Grounds shown in the restoration application is sufficient, because criminal revision was dismissed in default at the stage of admission.
Hence, criminal misc. application is allowed on cost of Rs. 200/-/ The criminal revision, which was dismissed on 26.4.2019 is restored and fixed on 10.5.2019 for hearing on admission."
Perusal of the above orders indicates that the trial court had passed this order of dismissal in default for want of prosecution, which was erroneous order because no order in revision could have been passed for default of appearance of the parties as the learned Judge was duty bound to pass order on merits only even if parties were not present, therefore, the order dated 8.5.2019 in which the said order dated 26.4.2019 has been recalled need not be touched because now he has fixed 10.5.2019 for hearing on admission of the said revision.
In view of above, this Court directs the trial court that after fixing a date for hearing of the said matter and notices having issued to both the sides, even if the parties do not appear before it, the trial court would be at liberty to decide the matter on merits and not in default.
With the above direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.6.2019 A.P. Pandey