# Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 33
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4459 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52150
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - The Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section 5 - Delay Condonation - if there is
any
possible
way
which
may
be
permissible under the law to allow the
application for condonation of delay to
hear and decide the lis or issue or
controversy or dispute before the court of
law or tribunal etc. on merits, that very
application must be allowed so that the
controversy or dispute etc. before the
competent court of law could be decided
on merits - technical approach rejecting
the lis or issue or controversy or dispute
etc. on the ground of limitation should be
avoided and the endeavour of the Tribunal
etc. should be to decide the issue etc. on
merits (Para 31)

B.
Employees'
Provident
Fund
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
-
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 - Section
7(2) - Appeal - Delay Condonation - Any
person aggrieved by an order passed by
any authority under the Act may, within
60 days from the date of issue of the
order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal -
Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient
cause from preferring the appeal within
the prescribed period, extend the said
period by a further period of 60 days.
C. Civil Law - The Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section 14 - In computing the period of
limitation, the time during which the
plaintiff has been prosecuting with due
diligence and in good faith another civil
proceeding, in a court which, due to defect
of jurisdiction or other cause of a similar
nature, is unable to entertain it, shall be
excluded.

D. Petitioner challenged the order dated
31.03.2021
passed
by
the
Assessing
Officer/Regional
Provident
Fund
Commissioner-II/EPFO - Appeal should
have been filed within 120 days i.e. on or
before 31.07.2021 - Appellate Tribunal at
Lucknow was not functional when the
impugned order was passed Petitioner, in

## Text

6 All. Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
33

7. Let the applicant Brajesh Singh
Alias Pappu Singh be released on bail in
aforesaid first information report number
subject to his furnishing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/-
(Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute
a bond to undertake to attend the
hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not
commit any offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused or suspected of the
commission; and

(c) The
applicant
shall
not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 33
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4459 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Neelam Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section
41-A-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections
341,
308,
323,
504,
506,
286-The
punishment
for
the
offences
in
the
impugned FIR is less than seven years, the
provisions of section 41-A Crpc shall be
strictly followed as per guidelines of the
Apex Court judgment in case of Arnesh
Kumar-directions issued. (Para 1 to 7)

B. In the case of Arnesh Kumar, the Apex
Court examined the application of section
41-A of the CrPC, which outlines certain
procedures before making an arrest. This
decision
strike
a
balance
between
preventing misuse of law and protecting
the rights of those accused. Failure of
these directions could result in the police
officer being held in contempt of court.
(Para 7)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bih. & ors. (2014) 8 SCC
273

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This petition seeks issuance of a
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered as
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0098 of 2024 under
Sections 341, 308, 323, 504, 506 and 286
I.P.C., Police Station Maheshganj, district
Pratapgarh.

3. The punishment for the offences
mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is less
than seven years.
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. In view of the order proposed to be
passed in this writ petition, issuance of
notice to the opposite party no. 4 is
dispensed with.

5.

Learned
Additional
Government Advocate looking to the
gravity of punishment being less than
seven
years
has
stated
that
the
provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
shall be strictly followed in terms of
judgment
rendered
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in a case
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh
Kumar
vs.
State
of
Bihar
and
another.

6. The present petition deserves to be
disposed of in terms of the statement made
by learned A.G.A.

7. Accordingly, this petition is
disposed of in view of the provisions of
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the law as laid
down by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar (supra).
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 34
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 4810 of 2024

Sahara Prime City Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nirmit Srivastava, Aakchad Nath, Amrandra
Nath Tripathi, Chandra Kant Rai, Rahul
Sajan Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Pratap Singh

A. Civil Law - The Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section 5 - Delay Condonation - if there is
any
possible
way
which
may
be
permissible under the law to allow the
application for condonation of delay to
hear and decide the lis or issue or
controversy or dispute before the court of
law or tribunal etc. on merits, that very
application must be allowed so that the
controversy or dispute etc. before the
competent court of law could be decided
on merits - technical approach rejecting
the lis or issue or controversy or dispute
etc. on the ground of limitation should be
avoided and the endeavour of the Tribunal
etc. should be to decide the issue etc. on
merits (Para 31)

B.
Employees'
Provident
Fund
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
-
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 - Section
7(2) - Appeal - Delay Condonation - Any
person aggrieved by an order passed by
any authority under the Act may, within
60 days from the date of issue of the
order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal -
Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient
cause from preferring the appeal within
the prescribed period, extend the said
period by a further period of 60 days.
C. Civil Law - The Limitation Act, 1963 -
Section 14 - In computing the period of
limitation, the time during which the
plaintiff has been prosecuting with due
diligence and in good faith another civil
proceeding, in a court which, due to defect
of jurisdiction or other cause of a similar
nature, is unable to entertain it, shall be
excluded.

D. Petitioner challenged the order dated
31.03.2021
passed
by
the
Assessing
Officer/Regional
Provident
Fund
Commissioner-II/EPFO - Appeal should
have been filed within 120 days i.e. on or
before 31.07.2021 - Appellate Tribunal at
Lucknow was not functional when the
impugned order was passed Petitioner, in