# Lalloo Khan & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 205
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 43088 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar-Ix
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalloo-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-45332
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code, 1862-Sections 379, 411challenge to-application for delay condonation -
allowed even not supported with affidavitground was sufficient for filing the appeal
beyond 12 days from the limitation-separate
affidavit in support of application is not
necessary.(Para 4 to 7)

In the instant case, application u/s 5 Limitation
Act was filed by the State on the ground that
public prosecutor was busy in other government
work, therefore appeal could not be filed within
limitation period.State comes with a prayer that
decision is required to be taken at various level
which causes delay, therefore court should
consider this aspect whether delay should be
condoned or not.(Para 6)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

6 All. Lalloo Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
205
decree has been passed in his favour by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad
on 29.09.2018 and after this ex-parte
decree he did his second marriage on
05.10.2018 and in counterblast of it
opposite party no. 2 has filed complaint
against the applicants after 16 years of the
marriage.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.
2 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the
applicants and submitted that at this state it
cannot be said that no offence is made out
against the applicants. Impugned summoning
order has been passed on sufficient ground.

6. The applicants have been summoned
on the basis of allegation made in complaint
and statement of complainant recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of two
witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
In the case of Monika Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781, it has been held
by
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
that
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down under section itself.
In the case of Union of India Vs. Prakash P.
Hinduja and another reported in A.I.R. 2003
SC 2612, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
as follows:-

"The grounds on which power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash
the criminal proceedings basically are (1)
where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or
complaint, even if they are taken at their fact
value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused (2) where the
uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R.
or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and made out a case
against the accused, (3) where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or
the concerned Act to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings. But this power
has to be exercised in a rare case and with
great circumspection."

7. From the perusal of material on the
record and looking into the facts of the case, at
this stage it cannot be said that no offence is
made out against the applicants.All the
submission made by learned counsel for
applicants relates to the disputed question of
fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage
only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of
the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960
S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 SCC (Cr.) 426. The disputed defence of
the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

8. The prayer for quashing the impugned
summoning order as well as further proceeding
in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

9. With the aforesaid observation, this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
dismissed.

----------
(2020)06ILR A205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 43088 of 2019

Lalloo Khan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code, 1862-Sections 379, 411challenge to-application for delay condonation -
allowed even not supported with affidavitground was sufficient for filing the appeal
beyond 12 days from the limitation-separate
affidavit in support of application is not
necessary.(Para 4 to 7)

In the instant case, application u/s 5 Limitation
Act was filed by the State on the ground that
public prosecutor was busy in other government
work, therefore appeal could not be filed within
limitation period.State comes with a prayer that
decision is required to be taken at various level
which causes delay, therefore court should
consider this aspect whether delay should be
condoned or not.(Para 6)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Heera Vs St. (2004) 13 SCC 582

2. Davinder Pal Sehgal & anr. Vs M/s. Pratap
Steel Rolling Mills, AIR (2001) SC 451

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the applicants with the
prayer
to
quash
the
order
dated
15.10.2019 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Hamirpur in Misc. Criminal
Appeal No. 5/11/18 (State Vs. Lalloo and
others) under Section 378 Cr.P.C. P.S.-
Sumerpur, District- Hamirpur whereby
the court below has allowed delay
condonation
application
(4Ka)
of
opposite
party
on
cost
Rs.
200/-
condoning the delay in filing the criminal
appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case is
that Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of 2017
(State Vs. Lalloo and others) arising out
of Case Crime No. 112/2017 under
Section 41, 42, 26 Indian Forest Act
1927, Section 3/28 Uttar Pradesh Aara
Machine Establishment and Regulation
Rules 1978 and Sections 379 & 411
I.P.C.,
P.S.-
Sumerpur,
District-
Hamirpur, was finally decided by the
court
of
A.C.J.M.
Hamirpur
on
30.10.2017. The applicants- accused
persons
were
acquitted
from
the
charges. Appeal against the above
judgment was preferred by the State
beyond 12 days from the limitation
period
with
an
application
under
Section 5 of Limitation Act on the
ground that public prosecutor was busy
in other government work therefore
appeal could not be filed within
limitation
period.
This
application
moved under Section 5 Limitation Act
was
allowed
by
Sessions
Judge,
Hamirpur by impugned order dated
15.10.2019 and delay in filing the
appeal was condoned.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
contended
that
learned
Sessions
Judge
acted
illegally
in
allowing
the
application
for
condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. The application moved under
Section 5 Limitation Act was not
supported by the affidavit.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer of the applicants and submitted
that delay was only of 12 days and there
6 All. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
207
was sufficient ground for allowing the
application.

6. In the instant case application
under Section 5 Limitation Act for
condoning the delay was filed by the State
and in matter concerning State it should be
kept in mind that generally decision is
taken at various level which takes time. In
State Vs Heera reported in (2004) 13 SCC
582, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
when State comes with a prayer for
condonation
of
delay
it
is
to
be
remembered that decision is required to be
taken at various level which causes delay
therefore court should consider this aspect
in deciding whether delay should be
condoned or not. In case in hand ground
mentioned in the application was that
public prosecutor was busy in other
government works due to which appeal
could be filed beyond 12 days from the
limitation period. Learned court below has
rightly concluded that there was sufficient
ground for the delay.

7. Learned counsel for applicants
vehemently contended that application
moved under Section 5 Limitation Act
was not supported with affidavit therefore
it was argued that it was illegally allowed
by the court below but when the court is
satisfied that ground mentioned in the
application was sufficient for filing the
appeal
beyond
12
days
from
the
limitation then it was not necessary to
support the application with a separate
affidavit. In the case of Davinder Pal
Sehgal & Another Vs. M/s. Pratap Steel
Rolling Mills reported in A.I.R. 2001 SC
451, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
even separate application for condonation
of delay is not necessary for condoning
the delay.

8. In view of the above, the prayer
made by learned counsel for applicant is
hereby refused.

9. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion that court below has not acted in
the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or
with material irregularity.

10. With the aforesaid observation,
this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A207
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Writ-B No. 20729 of 2007

Ajay Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri D.K. Singh, Sri S.N.S. Yadav, Sri
Saumitra Singh, Sri R.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, Sri V.K.
Singh, Sri Vishnu Bihari Tiwari

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950:
Section 178 to 182

The present dispute relates to the fact
whether the plot in dispute could be
auctioned as the total area of the plot in
the name of one persons would become
less then 3-1/8 acres in view of the Section
178 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as it existed
before the amendment Act 27 of 2004