# Aman Sinha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 12
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 13215 of 2024
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aman-sinha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52119
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 397 - Criminal
Revision - Dismissal of the revision in
default - No consideration on merit -
Permissibility - Madan Lal Kapoor's case
relied upon - Held, Principle that a
criminal appeal should not be dismissed
for default would also apply to criminal
6 All. Aman Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
13
revision - High Court set aside the
impugned order. (Para 4, 8 and 9)

Application allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that quashing of the criminal proceedings is
an exception than a rule. The inherent
powers of the High Court itself envisages
three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the court
; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. The power of High Court is very
wide
but
should be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice
for which the court alone exists.

24. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
light of the observations and discussions
made above and keeping view the facts and
circumstances of the case, and from the
perusal of the record, the impugned
complaint proceedings pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in
Criminal Compliant Case No. 18 of 2012;
State v. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan, under
Section
24 of
the
Contract
Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, P.S.
Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, filed by
the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),
Lucknow, and all consequential orders
arising thereon, are liable to be quashed as
in the present case learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow has failed to apply his
judicial mind to the facts of the case and
the
law
applicable
thereto
while
entertaining the same, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate has not examined the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidences both oral and documentary in
support thereof.

25. Accordingly, the impugned
complaint proceedings pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in
Criminal Compliant Case No. 18 of 2012;
State v. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan, under
Section
24 of
the
Contract
Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, P.S.
Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, filed by
the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),
Lucknow, and all consequential orders
arising thereon, are hereby quashed.

26. For the reasons discussed above,
the instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is allowed in
respect of the instant applicant, namely-
Union Bank of India.

27. Learned Senior Registrar of this
Court is directed to transmit a copy of this
order to the trial court concerned for its
necessary compliance.

28. No order as to cost(s).
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY J.

Application U/S 482 No. 13215 of 2024

Aman Sinha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 397 - Criminal
Revision - Dismissal of the revision in
default - No consideration on merit -
Permissibility - Madan Lal Kapoor's case
relied upon - Held, Principle that a
criminal appeal should not be dismissed
for default would also apply to criminal
6 All. Aman Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
13
revision - High Court set aside the
impugned order. (Para 4, 8 and 9)

Application allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Madan Lal Kapoor Vs Rajiv Thapar; (2007) 7
SCC 623

2. Bani Singh Vs St. of U.P.; (1996) 4 SCC 720

3. Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2007; Madan Lal
Kapoor Vs Rajiv Thapar and others decided on
31.08.2007

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Shri S. M. Faraz I. Kazmi,
the learned counsel for the applicant as well
as Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, the
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), Bareilly in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 414/2023-1190/2023 (Aman
Sinha Vs. Ankit Tandan and others),
whereby criminal revision preferred by
the applicant has been dismissed in
default.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that initially applicant had moved
an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against the opposite party Nos. 2
to 5 herein, which was rejected vide order
dated 07.07.2023 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc.
Application No. 935 of 2022 and against
which order the applicant preferred
criminal revision challenging the order
dated 07.07.2023 but the said revision has
been
dismissed
in
default
by
the
impugned order herein.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the impugned order
dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned
revisional court dismissing the revision in
default is against the ratio of law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several
judgments and he placed reliance upon
the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of
U.P. & Another [Criminal Appeal No.
2421 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 5298/2023), decided on 11.08.2023],
wherein in paras-4 to 7 it has been
observed as under:

"4. We have carefully gone
through the impugned order. It would
reveal that the learned counsel for the
appellant as also the appellant were absent
when the matter was taken up for hearing.
The order would further reveal that after
noting their absence, the Court perused the
records and ultimately passed the order
impugned. However, the order does not
reflect consideration of the case on merits.
In other words, it is a non-reasoned order.
When an adverse order would affect the
personal liberty of a person, the fact that he
is a convict cannot be a reason to deprive
him of fair treatment in the matter of
consideration of his revision petition in the
manner prescribed by this Court, as the law
laid down by this Court in that regard is
binding on all Courts by virtue of Article
141 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the decision in Madan Lal
Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar : (2007) 7 SCC
623, a Two-Judge Bench of this Court held
that the rule laid down by this Court that a
criminal appeal should not be dismissed for
default would also apply to criminal
revisions. The reference thus made was to
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. :
(1996) 4 SCC 720. In Bani Singh's case
(supra), this Court held thus:-

"14. ...... The plain language of
Section 385 makes it clear that if the
appellate court does not consider the
appeal fit for summary dismissal, it 'must'
call for the record and Section 386
mandates that after the record is received,
the appellate court may dispose of the
appeal after hearing the accused or his
counsel. Therefore, the plain language of
Sections 385-386 does not contemplate
dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution
simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code
envisages disposal of the appeal on merits
after perusal and scrutiny of the record.
The law clearly expects the appellate court
to dispose of the appeal on merits, not
merely by perusing the reasoning of the
trial court in the judgment, but by crosschecking the reasoning with the evidence
on record with a view to satisfying itself
that the reasoning and findings recorded by
the trial court are consistent with the
material on record. The law, therefore, does
not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for
default
or
non-prosecution
but
only
contemplates disposal on merits after
perusal of the record......"

6. We are in perfect agreement
with the view taken by the Two-Judge
Bench in Madan Lal Kapoor's case (supra)
and, therefore, even in the absence of a
party or his counsel, a revision petition
calls for consideration on merits in
accordance
with
the
parameters
for
consideration of a revision petition.

7. In that view of the matter,
without making any observation on the
merits, we remand this matter to be
considered anew. Taking note of the fact
that the revision petition is of the year
2017, we request the Hon'ble High Court
to
consider
the
revision
petition
expeditiously."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance upon another
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv
Thapar and others [Criminal Appeal No.
1150 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 3303 of 2006), decided on
31.08.2007], wherein in paras-3 to 6 it has
been observed as under:

"3. This appeal is directed
against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2000
dated August 8, 2005. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision
Petition filed by the appellant herein by the
order which reads thus;

"In spite of notice, nobody
appears for the petitioner today. Crl. Rev.
P. 42/2000 is accordingly dismissed in
default for non-prosecution."

4.
The
matter
relates
to
administration of criminal justice. As held
by this Court, a criminal matter cannot be
dismissed for default and it must be decided
on merits. Only on that ground the appeal
deserves to be allowed.

5.
There
is,
however,
an
additional reason also. Earlier when the
petition was dismissed, the aggrieved
appellant approached this Court and in
Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2002 a twoJudge Bench of this Court by an order
dated February 22, 2002 allowed the
appeal, set aside the order of the High
6 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
15
Court and observed that the matter should
be decided by the High Court after
application of mind and by passing a
reasoned order. Unfortunately, in the
impugned order, there are no reasons and
the merits have not been considered at all.

6. Hence, the appeal is allowed.
The order of the High Court is set aside
and the matter is remitted back to the High
Court. The High Court will decide the
matter on merits. Since the matter is very
old, we request the High Court to decide it
as early as possible preferably within a
period of four months."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant,
thus, submits that in view of the ration laid
down by Hon'ble Apex
Court,
the
impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is liable
to be set aside.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State could
not dispute the above submissions as
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant.

8. A perusal of the impugned order
dated
05.03.2024
does
not
reflect
consideration of case on merits by which
criminal revision preferred by applicant has
been dismissed in default by the revisional
court. Thus, this Court, in agreement with
the observations made in the aforesaid
judgments cited above, thinks it appropriate
to set aside the impugned order herein.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated
05.03.2024
passed
by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge
(F.T.C.),
Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.
414/2023-1190/2023 (Aman Sinha Vs.
Ankit Tandan and others) is hereby set
aside and the matter is remanded before the
concerned revisional court for passing fresh
orders.

10. With the above observations/
directions the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 15
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY J.

Application U/S 482 No. 14659 of 2024

Kamlesh Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shreyas Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Surya Pratap Singh Prmar, Ved
Prakash Dwivedi

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code1860-Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471-
After a period of more than a decade it has
been alleged that applicant was not
empowered to execute the power of
attorney and it was a piece of fraud and
forgery-There is a growing tendency to
conduct purely civil dispute into criminal
cases, there is an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a
criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement-Dispute between
parties of civil nature-Ingredients of
offences levelled not made out- ResultEntire proceedings quashed-Application
U/s 482 CrPC allowed.(Para 2, 3, 8, 9, 13,
14) (E-15)

List of Cases referred-