“No Cogent Reason”- Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Maurya
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya on the ground that there was not any cogent reason for the same.
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by a person named Diwakar Nath Tripathi.
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal said, “Thus looking to the entire facts as stated above and the law as culled out along with fact of non-prejudice, this Court is of the opinion that the application for condonation of delay is without any cogent reason, convincing justification and substantiated material and as such is not inclined to condone the delay.”
The Bench said that the applicant/revisionist appears to be casual, non-serious, and non-vigilant in preferring the revision.
Advocate Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi appeared for the revisionist while Senior Advocate M.C. Chaturvedi appeared for the opposite parties.
The revision was presented before the Section Officer, Stamp Reporter (Criminal) High Court and was reported to be in limitation up to May 29, 2022 and thus beyond time by 318 days. A delay condonation application supported by an affidavit of the revisionist was filed with it. Subsequently, the revision after being presented for reporting was then presented before J.R. (J) (Computer), High Court for its filing after which it was marked to be beyond time by 327 days.
Previously the applicant/revisionist had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 which after some arguments was prayed to be dismissed as withdrawn by the counsel appearing therein as he intended to explore the remedy available to him under law and as such the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court. Hence, he filed a delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “Even otherwise by deciding the application for delay condonation and not entering into the merits of the matter would not in any manner prejudice the revisionist. The law on the grievance of the revisionist is also well settled. In the case of Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India : 2007 (6) SCC 171 it has been held by the Apex Court that the correct position in law is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out but in case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
The Court further noted that the revisionist claims himself to be in the field of social service as pleaded by him in his application filed under Section 156(3) of CrPC and claims himself to be a social worker and an R.T.I. Activist and as such he cannot be found as a person to be casual, non-serious, and non-vigilant.
“He also cannot be taken to be a rustic and an ignorant villager. There is no ground taken in the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit in support of it to show that there has been seriousness by the revisionist in perusing the matter. The averments in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay are vague and unsubstantiated submissions. The revisionist has failed even remotely to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the condonation application and revision.
Cause Title- Diwakar Nath Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:17818)
Appearance:
Revisionist: ---
Opposite Parties: Government Advocate A.K. Sand, Additional Government Advocate-I Ajay Singh, Additional Government Advocate Neeraj Kant, and Advocate Rajeev Lochan Shukla.
