DAYASHANKAR MANI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard Sri V. C. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) THE writ petition is reported to be beyond time by 312 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for condonation of the aforesaid laches as he was bona fidely pursuing another remedy in this High Court by way of a criminal revision No. 2026 of 2003, which was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file another revision or Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. However, he was granted liberty to seek remedy before the proper forum in a writ petition. This order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. THE explanation given for laches is satisfactory and the delay is condoned. I proceed to hear the writ petition on merits.

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioners on a decision of this Court in the case of Rama Shankar Pandey and Ors. v. U. P. Police / Station Officer Kotwali, Ghazipur, 1994 (31) A. C. C. 346. This is a decision following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 Criminal Law Journal 527. It is emphatically submitted that the case of the present petitioners is covered by four out of seven circumstances, enumerated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) where a First Information Report can be quashed and therefore, this Court is bound to follow the decision of the Apex Court and stay the order of the Magistrate.