Smt. Kunti Devi v. State of U.P. & another)
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
others V. Smt. Deo Rajain Devi and another (1960) 3 SCR 590 Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs. Commissioner of Ranchi(1981)2 SCC 764 has observed that remand order is an interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after the final judgment made on remand.
7. For release of Rs.19,85,000/- three applications were filed. Application annexed as Annexure No.5 was filed by the applicant. Another application was filed by the accused. The application for release of the said amount was also preferred by the opposite party no.2.
8. For disposal of the application the case was fixed on 05.04.2023 and prior to the same it was fixed on 13.03.2023. However, without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the Magistrate passed the order favourable to present applicant on 15.03.2023.
9. To dispute the dates fixed in the case indicated above, i.e.
13.03.2023 and 05.04.2023, no document has been placed on record by the applicant. In the instant application the applicant has also not indicated the reasons for passing the order on 15.03.2023.
10. Further, the Magistrate in the order dated 15.03.2023 took note of the fact that the opposite party no.2 has filed the application dated 19.01.2023 and from this order it is also apparent that the opportunity to advance submission was not given to the opposite party no.2, who filed the revision in which the impugned order was passed.
11. Having considered the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
others V. Smt. Deo Rajain Devi and another (1960) 3 SCR 590 Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs. Commissioner of Ranchi(1981)2 SCC 764 has observed that remand order is an interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after the final judgment made on remand.
7. For release of Rs.19,85,000/- three applications were filed. Application annexed as Annexure No.5 was filed by the applicant. Another application was filed by the accused. The application for release of the said amount was also preferred by the opposite party no.2.
8. For disposal of the application the case was fixed on 05.04.2023 and prior to the same it was fixed on 13.03.2023. However, without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the Magistrate passed the order favourable to present applicant on 15.03.2023.
9. To dispute the dates fixed in the case indicated above, i.e.
13.03.2023 and 05.04.2023, no document has been placed on record by the applicant. In the instant application the applicant has also not indicated the reasons for passing the order on 15.03.2023.
10. Further, the Magistrate in the order dated 15.03.2023 took note of the fact that the opposite party no.2 has filed the application dated 19.01.2023 and from this order it is also apparent that the opportunity to advance submission was not given to the opposite party no.2, who filed the revision in which the impugned order was passed.
11. Having considered the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench