Allahabad High Court
Rashmi Nandan Singh @ Pintoo vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 January, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2689 of 2022 Revisionist :- Rashmi Nandan Singh @ Pintoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamalesh Singh,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. Present revision has been filed against the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 922 of 2021 (Smt. Sweta Singh Vs. Rashmi Nandan Singh). By that order, the learned court below has allowed Paper No. 3-Kha filed by opposite party no.2 and thus recalled its earlier order dated 12.11.2021.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is, in the first place, the application for recall was not maintainable at the instance of the claimant wife. Second, it has been strenuously urged, no reason whatsoever was recorded in the detailed order passed by the learned court below as may be read and understood as recognition of sufficient cause to recall the ex parte order dated 12.11.2021.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has referred to various circumstances including illness of the mother of the claimant wife and transfer of proceedings from one family court to another, he has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. Chandana Kapoor & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2020), decided on 19.02.2020 to submit, the recall application was maintainable.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, the impugned order was passed by the learned court below to recall the earlier order dated 12.11.2021, subject to payment of cost Rs. 1,000/-.
6. Though detail arguments have been advanced on merits, on specific query made, learned counsel for the applicant candidly admits, the applicant has accepted cost Rs. 1,000/- paid by the opposite party no.2. Once cost has been paid and accepted, no ground survives to consider the merits of the matter.
7. Though cost has been paid and accepted by the applicant subsequent to the filing of the present revision, it would have no effect to allow the Court to entertain the present revision on merits, today.
8. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023 Abhilash