Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14905 of 2018 Applicant :- K.P. Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. A. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court no.4, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2017 (Kaidila Pharmaceutical Limited through its authorized representative Deepak Kumar Manocha Vs. State of U.P. and another whereby the aforesaid criminal revision was allowed. The order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the ACJM, Court No.1, Meerut whereby the complaint in terms of Section 256 Cr.P.C. was set aside and the matter was remanded to decide the same a fresh keeping in view the amended provision of Section 142 (2) N. I. Act which came into force from 15.06.2015.
From the record, the Court finds that the opposite party no.2, Cadila Pharmaceutical Limited filed a complaint case no. 1888 of 2014 (Kadila Pharmaceutical Limited Vs.
K. P. Singh under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the ACJM-Ist, Meerut in terms of Section 256 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2017, the complainant, i.e., opposite party no.2 herein preferred a criminal revision, which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 08.08.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the revisional court, the applicant has now come before this Court by means of the present criminal misc.application.
This application has been filed after an expiry of a period of more than eight months from the date of the passing of the summoning order dated 08.08.2017 impugned in the present criminal application. Therefore, prima facie, the present application is hopelessly barred by laches.
Learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 20 of the affidavit and on the basis thereof, he contends that the laches in filing the present application have been sufficiently explained. He therefore submits that as the laches in filing the present application have been sufficiently explained, the same are liable to be ignored by this Court.
Paragraph 20 of the affidavit relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is reproduced hereunder:
"20. That the impugned order had been passed by the Ld. Court concerned on 08.08.2017 and thereafter the present applicant had approached to the present counsel for getting filed his case before this Hon'ble Court but during the preparation of the case the file of the case somehow misplaced and file was under search for months together but inspite of the bet efforts of the counsel of the applicant, he did not able to trace the file and thereafter under the compulsion he again asked the present applicant to obtain a fresh certified copy of the order and send it to him and therefore the present applicant immediately got a new certified copy of the impugned order on 12.04.2018 and how he is filing the present application before this Hon'ble Court."
A perusal of the avements made in paragraph 20 of the affidavit goes to show that the same are wholly vague and devoid of material facts. Consequently, the explanation offered in paragraph 20 of the affidavit for explaining the laches in filing the present criminal misc.application neither appears to be sufficient nor truthful.
In view of the facts as noticed above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 YK