DINESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5547 of 2025

Dinesh
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                 :   Bibhuti Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A., Pradeep Kumar

Court No. - 87
                 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, opposite party no. 2 was granted two weeks' time, as a last
opportunity, to file a counter affidavit. However, till date, no counter
affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2.

2. In view of above, the opportunity to file a counter affidavit by learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2, is hereby closed.

3. Mr. B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
representing the State are present. Though the name of Mr. Pradeep
Kumar, Advocate is duly published in the cause list as counsel for
opposite party no. 2 but neither he nor anyone on his behalf is present to
oppose the present Criminal Revision.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Criminal Revision is being decided
with the assistance of learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A.
representing the State and on the basis of perusal of record.

5. Heard Mr. B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
A.G.A. representing the State and perused the material available on
record.

6. Revisionist Dinesh has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 17.01.2025
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj (hereinafter
                                                        CRLR No. 5547 of 2025
                               2


referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 605 of 2024,
Dinesh v. Ranjani Devi, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., whereby the Trial
Court rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the restoration application by the
revisionist.

7. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the present Criminal
Revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order has been
passed without considering the material evidence available on record and,
therefore, a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order,
allowing the present Criminal Revision.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist with a delay of only 13
days. However, the Trial Court, without properly considering the
circumstances explained by the revisionist, rejected his application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is, thus, contended that the delay of 13
days could have been condoned by imposing appropriate costs, but the
Trial Court adopted a rather harsh approach against the revisionist. In the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the revisionist
submits prayed that the impugned order be set aside by this Court
allowing the present Criminal Revision.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present revision
and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that as recorded in the
impugned order, the Trial Court, in the parent proceedings, passed an
order dated 29.07.2022 holding that the notice has been duly served upon
the revisionist. Thereafter, on 08.11.2023, the matter was proceeded with
ex parte and ultimately, an ex parte judgment and order was passed on
23.02.2024. The revisionist appeared before the Trial Court after expiry
of the prescribed period of limitation, with a delay of thirteen days and
filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

10. It is, thus, submitted that the revisionist was well aware of the
pendency of the proceedings and was sufficiently vigilant about the
matter, yet he did not take any steps to contest the proceedings until the
                                                                                           CRLR No. 5547 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    matter has been finally adjudicated ex parte. His conduct, therefore,
                                    indicates an attempt to delay the proceedings. In the aforesaid facts and
                                    circumstances, no lenient view is warranted in favour of the revisionist
                                    and the present Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    11. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the revisionist could
                                    not overcome the same.

                                    12. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties
                                    and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the revisionist has not
                                    approached the proceedings with due diligence and has failed to avail the
                                    opportunity afforded by the Trial Court. In such circumstances, no
                                    indulgence is warranted in favour of the revisionist. Accordingly, we find
                                    no merit in the present Criminal Revision, which is liable to be dismissed.

                                    13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed.



                                                                                   (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Brijesh Maurya




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad