Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4781 of 2002 Applicant :- Om Prakash Srivastava And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- P.C. Srivastava,Shivendra Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,L.K. Pandey
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been challenging the order dated 18.12.1999 passed by A.C.J.M. IV, Allahabad and the further proceeding in Case No. 2053 of 1999 u/s 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C.
It is borne out from the record that on 23.05.2002 the interim protection was granted to the applicant and on 02.12.2010 the aforesaid application was dismissed as infructuous. The order dated 02.12.2010 is being quoted below:-
"This application under section 482, Cr.P.C. was listed today under the following heading:
"The following Section 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. petitions are likely to have become infructuous. Intimation must be given by the learned counsel or theri registered clerks to the reader in between 10 A.M. to 1 P.M. regarding the cases which survives, by marking 'S' (surviving) against the Sl. No. of the said cases. The cases in which no such intimation is given will be dismissed as infructuous without being called out."
In this case no suck marking was made. Accordingly, application is dismissed as infructuous.
Office is directed to intimate the court below or the S.S.P./S.P. concerned about this order."
From the perusal of the records of the present case it appears that Sri L.K. Pandey, has filed his Parcha on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 dated 02.08.2002 and thereafter, Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari has filed his Parcha on 19.10.2011. However, the name of Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari is not printed from the side of opposite party in the additional cause list.
This Court is proceed to dismiss the present matter as infructuous particularly, in view of the fact that the name of two counsels is printed in the cause list. This Court has been apprised that one of the counsel namely, Sri P.C. Srivastava, who had appeared for counsel for the applicant, has expired but in today's additional cause list the name of Sri Shivendra Bahadur is printed on applicant's side. As nobody is present on behalf of the applicant nor anybody is there for making request for adjourning the matter and the present matter is of the year 2002 which has been taken up in revised list.
Hence, this Court has no option but to dismiss the present application for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Nisha