Allahabad High Court
Nandita Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And ... on 10 June, 2022
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3636 of 2022 Applicant :- Nandita Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shrikant Mishra,Kumar Jaikrit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and peruse the record.
The present application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.15162 of 2005 (Prabhagiya Van Adhikari vs. Debvrat Chaudhary & Others) as well as impugned consequential order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.15162 of 2005 (Prabhagiya Van Adhikari vs. Debrat Chaudhary & Others). Further prayer has been made to direct the learned trial court to consider and decide the Discharge application dated 23.05.2019 of the applicant a fresh by passing a reasoned & speaking order in accordance with the law.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was wrongly summoned in the case in question by the learned court below and the orders dated 22.10.2005 and 03.04.2007 passed by C.J.M., Lucknow in Complaint Case No.15162 of 2005 was challenged before this Court in writ petition (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.1383 of 2007 (Nandita Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another) and the petition was disposed of on 08.05.2019 and liberty was granted to the applicant for filing discharge application in conformity with the provision of Cr.P.C. and it was also directed to the trial court that in case any such application is filed, then the same shall be considered and decided.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the application was moved for discharge on 23.05.2019 and learned court below has fixed 10.07.2019 for hearing and on the next date due to negligence of counsel of the applicant, applicant could not appear before the court below and the application for discharge was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submitted that the client should not be victimized for the fault of the counsel. Therefore, the kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant, but he does not dispute this fact that in terms of order passed by this court on 08.05.2019 discharge application was moved by the applicant on 23.05.2019 before the court below on which next date was fixed on 10.07.2019 and on the next date application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and going through the records, it is evident from the impugned order that the discharge application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution due to negligence of his counsel and it is not appropriate in the interest of justice to pass such type of order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties, therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the order dated 10.07.2019 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for passing adequate order on discharge application of the applicant within a period of three weeks from today.
Till the disposal of discharge application of the applicant, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant.
With the aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.6.2022 S. Shivhare