# Smt. Rama Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 737
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-06-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 7268 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rama-kushwaha-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42264
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482quashinfg of summoning order-offence
under Section 498-A with 3/4 D.P. ActMagistrate passed order on basis of
material-recorded under Section 200 and
202 Cr.P.C.-does not form any illegalitymediation failed between the partiesapplication-dismissed-interim
order
vacated.

Held: Para 6 and 7

I have perused the summoning order
dated 5.11.2009 which has been passed
on the basis of the statement recorded
under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202
Cr.P.C. respectively. On the basis of the
material available on record, the learned
Magistrate found a prima facie case
made out against the applicants has
summoned them to face the trial in the
aforesaid offences.

In my opinion, the summoning order
dated 5.11.2009 does not suffer from
any illegality nor it can be said to be
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
abuse of the process of the Court, hence
no interference is called for by this Court
in exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application lacks
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Rama Kushwaha and others V. State of U.P. and another
737
Employment and Training, Ministry of
Labour that casual workers recruited
before 07.06.88 and who are in service on
the date of issue of these instructions, may
be considered for regular appointment to
Group 'D' posts, in terms of the general
instruction, even if they were recruited
otherwise
than
through
employment
exchange and had crossed the upper age
limit prescribed for the posts provided they
are
otherwise
eligible
for
regular
appointment in all other respects."

21. It is apparent from the above OM
that consideration of casual workers for
regularization was only as a one time
measure, in consultation with the Director
General
Employment
and
Training,
Ministry of Labour. Since the petitioner was
not in service on 8th April, 1991, when this
letter was issued he had no right of
regularization.

22. The decisions referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner are not applicable
in this case as the petitioner in those cases
were not in service on 8th April, 1991 the
date on which the policy decision was
enforced
by
the
government.
These
decisions only refer to the relaxation of age,
whereas it is clearly revealed in the
impugned order that the application for
regular appointment of the petitioner had
not been rejected only on the grounds of his
being over age at the time of trade test.

23. As in the instant case, the
petitioner has not been able to show that he
has any legal right to be permanently
absorbed and he was not eligible on the date
one time concession was granted to such
employee who were working as such the
petition deserves to be dismissed.

24. For all the reasons stated above,
the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.06.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 7268 of 2010

Smt. Rama Kushwaha and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raghubir Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Sri Dashrath Lal

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482quashinfg of summoning order-offence
under Section 498-A with 3/4 D.P. ActMagistrate passed order on basis of
material-recorded under Section 200 and
202 Cr.P.C.-does not form any illegalitymediation failed between the partiesapplication-dismissed-interim
order
vacated.

Held: Para 6 and 7

I have perused the summoning order
dated 5.11.2009 which has been passed
on the basis of the statement recorded
under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202
Cr.P.C. respectively. On the basis of the
material available on record, the learned
Magistrate found a prima facie case
made out against the applicants has
summoned them to face the trial in the
aforesaid offences.

In my opinion, the summoning order
dated 5.11.2009 does not suffer from
any illegality nor it can be said to be
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
abuse of the process of the Court, hence
no interference is called for by this Court
in exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application lacks
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. List is revised. None responds on
behalf of the applicant as well as opp. party
No.2.

2. Heard learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

3. The present matter has come up
before this Court today on an application
given by opp. party No.2 on 19.5.2012
addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
this Court for vacating the interim order
passed by this Court as she is being denied
for early justice from this Court or she will
be compelled to commit suicide failing to
seek justice. The said application was
referred by the Registrar General on
6.6.2012 to the In-charge of Mediation
Centre. It further transpires that the said
application was placed before the Hon'ble
Chairman
of
Supervisory
Committee
AHCMCC, who vide order dated 20.6.2012
directed the Registrar (Listing) to get the
case listed in the next cause list before the
appropriate Court and also to apprise the
Hon'ble Court hearing the matter with the
contents of the contents of the application.
Hence the present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has come up today before this
Court for disposal, as already stated above
that the mediation between the parties have
failed before the Mediation Centre.

4. From the record, it transpires that
the opp. party No.2, Smt. Seema, is the wife
of applicant No.4. The matter being
matrimonial dispute, was referred to the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre by this
Court vide order dated 10.3.2010. As per
the report of the Mediation Centre dated
21.12.2010, which is on record of this case,
the Mediation process between the husband
and wife has been stated to be unsuccessful.

5. By means of this application, the
applicant has challenged the summoning
order dated 5.11.2009 passed by the C.J.M.,
Lalitpur in complaint case No.3404 of 2009
(Smt. Seema Devi Vs. Gajendra Singh and
others), under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and
D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictLalitpur.

6. I have perused the summoning
order dated 5.11.2009 which has been
passed on the basis of the statement
recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and
202 Cr.P.C. respectively. On the basis of the
material available on record, the learned
Magistrate found a prima facie case made
out against the applicants has summoned
them to face the trial in the aforesaid
offences.

7. In my opinion, the summoning
order dated 5.11.2009 does not suffer from
any illegality nor it can be said to be abuse
of the process of the Court, hence no
interference is called for by this Court in
exercise of its inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. The application lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. Interim order passed by this Court
on 10.3.2010 is hereby vacated.

9. Office is directed to communicate
the certified copy of this order to the trial
Court as well as opp. party No.2 for follow
up action immediately by Fax and other
means.
---------
2 All] Abrar Ahmad and others V. Adheekshak Kendriya Karagar and others
739
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 11122
of 2010

Abrar Ahmad & Others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Adheekshak
Kendriya
Karagar
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandrakesh Mishra
Sri Daya Shankar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Sri Amit Sthalekar
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-seeking direction for
formation of Special Bench dealing with
criminal
appeal,
revisions-pending
before High Court-and to declare the
detention like petitioner contrary to
constitution-petitioners
having
alternative remedy to apply for bailapart from unless confinement-heldillegal-petition not maintainable-if such
direction on such frivolous petitions
issued-very chaotic situations be created
and the unique position of chief Justice
would be jeopardy-for last 3 years no
body turnup to press this petition-inspite
of repented call-itself example that
petitioner more interested in hogging
the lime light than agitating for right
cause-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 6

We cannot direct the Court, under the
circumstance we have just noted. It
would not only be perilous to do but
shall also be a dangerous and hazardous
thing to happen to judicial system. The
Chief Justice of any court is supposed to
be sensitive enough to the pendency and
it is further supposed that His Lordship is
making
all
efforts
to
expedite
the
hearing alongwith his brother judges.
Any one from the public might be publicspirited in highlighting the pendency but
here in the present case we are of the
opinion that the petitioners appears
more interested in hogging the lime-light
than raising and agitating a right cause.
As regards the relief of issuing direction
in the nature of mandamus, etc. to the
court for its expeditious disposal of the
cases, we do not find any reason existing
for our indulgence.
Case law discussed:
Habeas Corpus petition no.30373 of 2009 Ram
Lochan Yadav vs. State of U. P. and others

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

1. This petition is of the year 2010 and
in spite of the same being listed is not being
prosecuted by the petitioners, as none
appears on their behalf on each day, the
same is being called out, as such, we are
forced to hear Sri Sudhir Saxena, who has
been assisting the Court as the counsel of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. The prayers which have been made
in the present petition are as under :-

1.That this Court should issue writ in
the nature of habeas corpus, order or
direction so as to deciding or hearing the
criminal revision petitions, criminal appeals
of
different
nature
and
other
such
proceedings in which cases the persons are
interested which are pending before this
Court;

2.That the court should issue writ of
habeas corpus and should declare the
detention of the accused like the present