Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARESH PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Naresh Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 13168 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18729 (6 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 45

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT  PETITION NO. 13168 OF 2006

Naresh Pal Singh and others.......................Petitioners.

                                         Versus

State of U.P and others..............................Respondents.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The First Information Report has been registered on 24.9.2000.  The investigation commenced, final report was submitted on 28.2.2001.  The Magistrate did not agree with the final report and summoned the accused/petitioners on 3.10.2001. The objection was filed against the summoning order on 2.11.2001, which was rejected on 19.1.2002.  A criminal revision no. 166 of 2002 was preferred on 9.4.2002, and the same was dismissed on 23.12.2005.  Another criminal revision no. 13 of 2006 was preferred on 18.1.2006 challenging the summoning order dated 3.10.2001, which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 8.9.2006 on the ground of delay of almost five years. The petitioners have not surrendered before the court concerned and obtained bail.  

I am not inclined to interfere in the instant case.  The revisional court has rightly disallowed the application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act as the same was filed highly belated.  Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since he was pursuing another remedy i.e. delay caused in preferring the criminal revision, therefore, the period of limitation expired.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Badlu and another Vs. Shiv Charan and others 1980 (4) SCC page 401, wherein it has been held that in the event it is brought to the notice of the court that delay caused in pursuing the appeal was bonafide and the parties was diligently in good faith pursuing the appeal, then delay was liable to be condoned.   It is well settled that if a litigant is pursuing bonafidely civil proceedings with due diligence, he is entitled to exclusion of the time taken in such proceedings in the combined effect under Sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act. This citation cannot be taken into consideration that delay can be condoned in filing the revision, which was highly belated, was consequent to initiation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the First Information Report. The petitioners have not surrendered as required by law, therefore, the petitioners cannot get any benefit from the aforesaid decision. The writ petition is dismissed.

However, in the event the petitioners appear and move the bail application in case crime no.224 of 2000 under  Sections 307, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Islam Nagar, District Badaun, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned expeditiously.

Dt. 6.11.2006

rkg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.