Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13610 of 2018 Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Mishra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 7.11.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar in Complaint Case No. 687 of 2013 (Meena Vs. Narendra Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Khesaraha, District Siddharth Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
This application has been filed after an expiry of period of more than four years and five months from the date of passing of the summoning order dated 7.11.013. Therefore, prima facie, this application is hopelessly barred by laches.
Learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the court to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit and on the basis thereof, he submits that there is no deliberate negligence or laches on the part of the applicants in filing the present criminal misc. application. He further submits that since the laches in filing the present application has been properly explained, the same is liable to be ignored, by this court.
From the record, the Court finds that bailable warrants were issued against the applicants vide order dated 6.11.2015 and the same continued to exist for almost two years. There is no recital in the affidavit explaining the aforesaid circumstance nor there is a statement to that effect in the affidavit that bailable warrants have been issued vide order dated 6.11.2015 and the same were never served or what happened thereafter. It is only when the non bailable warrants were issued by the court below, that the applicants have rushed to this court.
Prima facie, the court is of the opinion that the applicants themselves deliberately avoided the service as it is impossible to believe that bailable warrants can remain unserved served for a period of two years.
This being the position, the Court declines to interfere with the present application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Arshad