Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

A.R. ENTERPRISES THRU. ITS PROPRIETOR SAIYYAD NADEEM SHAHID ALIAS NADEEM ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. HOME CIVIL SECTT. LKO AND ANOTHER

Decided
Disposal
Dismissed on merits/Rejected

Holding

The application under Section 482 was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

A.R. Enterprises, through its proprietor, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking relief against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another party. No counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant, while counsel for the opposite party was present. The High Court observed that there was no one to press the application and therefore dismissed it for want of prosecution. Consequently, any interim order that had been granted was vacated. The matter was then consigned to the record room.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate course of action when an application under Section 482 is filed but the applicant’s counsel is absent?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Section 482
  • Inherent powers of High Court
  • Dismissal for want of prosecution
  • Interim order vacated

Judgment

                                              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                             LUCKNOW
                                                      APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4142 of 2024


                                     A.R. Enterprises Thru. Its Proprietor Saiyyad
                                     Nadeem Shahid Alias Nadeem Ali                                .....Applicant(s)
                                                                           Versus

                                     State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil
                                     Sectt. Lko And Another                                           .....Opposite
                                                                                                            Party(s)

                                     Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Suresh Chandra Shukla
                                     Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prakhar Misra, Vaibhav Shukla

                                    Court No. - 16
                                                         HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

                                    Case called out in the revised list.

                                    None is present for the applicant to press this application.

                                    Sri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate, is present for the opposite party No. 2.

                                    In view of the above, the application is dismissed for want of
                                    prosecution. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

                                    Consign to record-room.


                                                                                             (Brij Raj Singh,J.)
                                    December 4, 2025
                                    A.Nigam




Digitally signed by :-
ANUJ NIGAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.