Allahabad High Court
Raj Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 December, 2019
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44970 of 2019 Applicant :- Raj Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Singh. Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for challenging the order dated 09.07.2019 in Complaint Case No.445 of 2017 passed by Additional Court, Varanasi, by which proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been issued against the applicant.
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was summoned vide order dated 03.01.2005. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.01.2005, the applicant preferred an application under Section 482 No.11498 of 2007 and this Court vide order dated 24.05.2007 had stayed the further proceedings of the complaint case.
Subsequently, the aforesaid application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2017. However, despite the disposal of the said application, the applicant did not appear before the court below and as such, the proceedings resumed and on account of non-appearance of the applicant, proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been issued against him vide impugned order dated 09.07.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the impugned order dated 09.07.2019.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and submitted that even after lapse of two years of dismissal of the earlier application, the applicant has not appeared before the court below and as such, proclamation under Sections 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him, in the backdrop of the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the court below is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that despite lapse of two years of dismissal of the earlier application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant did not appear before the court below and as such, proclamation under Sections 82 Cr.P.C. has rightly been issued against him. In the backdrop of the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the court below is absolutely just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.
The present application under Section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Zafar