Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43049 of 2017 Applicant :- Kanchi Lal Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Office report dated 27.04.2019 indicates that service on opposite party no.2 is incomplete. However, in view of the fact that the matter has remained pending for two years and also the fact that the present application arises from the rejection of Section 5 application accompanying the criminal revision filed by the applicant against the cognizance order and the further fact that in similar circumstances and for similar delay, the revision filed by the co-accused is stated to have been allowed, the present application is being entertained and decided.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 04.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2015 (Kanchilal Sharma Vs. State), arsing out of Case Crime No. 434 of 1999, under Sections 147, 195, 211, 218, 220, 323, 343, 120B IPC, Police Station Jawan, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against the cognizance order dated 10.04.2007, the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Revision No. 127 of 2015 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which has been rejected by the impugned order, whereas against the cognizance order dated 17.11.2006, arising from the same case crime, the criminal revision filed by the co-accused (Manohar Singh Yadav) on 18.12.2013 was entertained after condoning the delay. In fact, that accused is stated to have been discharged.
5. In such circumstances, it has been submitted, the learned court below has erroneously rejected the delay condonation application filed by the present applicant, though, for the same/similar delay and cause, it had allowed the delay condonation application filed by the co-accused Manohar Singh Yadav and entertained the revision.
6. Since both the cognizance orders dated 17.11.2006 and 10.04.2007 appear to have arisen from the same FIR, it appears that two different charge sheets had been submitted on different dates against the applicant and the co-accused Manohar Singh Yadav. In such circumstances, it would have been proper to the learned court below to have dealt with the delay condonation application filed by the applicant on similar terms as in the case of Manohar Singh Yadav and the delay in the case of the applicant ought to have been condoned.
7. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in calling for a counter affidavit of opposite party no.2. The present application is being dealt with and decided on issue of parity to ensure that the co-accused in the same case crime is dealt with similarly.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Aligarh is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned court below to decide the same on merits.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the case and the same are left open to be considered and decided independently by learned court below. It is expected that learned court below shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after hearing the parties.
10. The present application is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 29.4.2019 AHA