Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23540 of 2018 Applicant :- Prem Pal And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.K.R. Sharma, 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 summoning order dated 8.06.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No. 4014 of 2016 (110/11/16) CNR No. 040261662016 (Sonawati Vs. Prem Pal and others), under sections 323, 452 IPC, P.S.Barla, District Aligarh, as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. Apart from the aforesaid, the applicants have also challenged the order dated 4.4.2018 passed by the Court below, whereby bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants. When the matter was taken up on 19.7.2018, the Court passed the following order:-
"As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, put up this case on 26th July, 2018 as a fresh case in order to enable him to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the laches in filing the present application."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record. Referring to paragraph No. 4 of the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the laches in filing the present application have been sufficiently explained and therefore the same are liable to be ignored by this Court. Paragraph No. 4 of the supplementary affidavit relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is noted herein under:-
"That on 28.4.2018 the applicant no. 1 went to District Court, Aligarh for another work and meet his counsel Mr. Sanjeev Sharma Advocate then he given the information about the said case then the applicant no. 1 immediately apply the Folio for order sheet on 2.5.2018 and summoning order through his counsel. Thereafter the entire facts came in the knowledge of the applicants."
A perusal of the averment made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit makes it specifically clear that the explanation offered by the applicants for explaining the laches in filing the present application with delay is neither sufficient nor truthful.
Consequently, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain this application.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 HSM