Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12724 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Pallavi Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Sadab Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Sri M.L. Maurya, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, which is taken on record.
Heard Ms. Pallavi Sharma, applicant appeared in person, Sri M.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.
Present application has been filed against the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 7944 of 2013 (Smt. Pallavi Sharma Vs. Nishant Sharma and others) under Section 406 IPC. By that order, the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the applicant to proceed against the opposite party no.2 (applicant's husband) by issuance of non bailable warrant on account of his continued non appearance in the complaint case.
The learned court below has rejected the application filed by the applicant on the reasoning that the proceeding in the complaint case have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2015 passed in application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27039 of 2015.
Perusal of the order dated 09.09.2015 passed in the aforesaid application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27039 of 2015, reveals that this Court had stayed the proceeding in complaint case. At the same time, it is noted that the aforesaid 482 Cr.P.C application had been filed by two of the accused namely Raghvendra Sharma and Smt. Manju Sharma being parents-in-law of the present applicant. The aforesaid application has not been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 namely Nishant Sharma (her husband).
Thus, while the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27039 of 2015 was filed only on behalf of the applicant's parents-in-law, however, by the interim order, the entire proceedings have been stayed and that application is still pending as also interim order is still operating therein.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the reasoning made by the learned court below to reject the application filed by the applicant cannot be faulted, inasmuch as the learned court below has only made compliance of the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by this Court.
Also, Sri M.L.Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised objection that the present application is delayed.
In view of the fact, I find that there is no error in the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the learned court below, the objection as to the delay is inconsequential. The present application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Lbm/-