Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140299 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44607 of 2024 Applicant :- Pradeep And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balendra Deo Misra,Tarak Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA. 2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lalitpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.77 of 2024 (Smt. Rani Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 5 of Limitation Act, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 was married to applicant no.1 in the year 2012 and due to certain dispute, opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.504 of 2013, under Section 498- A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against applicants wherein chargesheet was submitted and cognizance of offence was also taken by learned court concerned. During trial of Case No.4207 of 2013 arising out of said case crime number, opposite party no.2 and her witnesses not appeared before learned trial court concerned for recording their statements, the said case was decided vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 as ex-parte in shape of acquitting the applicants herein in absence of any evidence. Being aggrieved with the ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2024 on dated 23.01.2024 along with delay condonation application wherein vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lalitpur allowed the delay condonation application and referred the said criminal appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur for deciding the issue of admission of criminal appeal. 4. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that during trial of Case No.4207 of 2013, several opportunity were extended in favour of opposite party no.2 by learned trial court concerned for producing evidence in shape of recording statements of opposite party no.2 as well as witnesses, but no one appeared despite issuance of bailable warrants, therefore no occasion was left before learned trial court concerned but to decide the same as ex- parte and the same was decided ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 acquitting the applicants herein. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that opposite party no.2, only to harass the applicants, after lapse of one year, preferred Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2024 on dated 23.01.2024 along with delay condonation application but without considering the facts mentioned in the order dated 24.11.2022, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lalitpur vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024 allowed the said delay condonation application and referred the said criminal appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur for deciding the issue of admission of criminal appeal which is bad in the eye of law and as such, order dated 23.10.2024 may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicants on the ground that after considering the objection preferred at the behest of applicants in the said criminal appeal, learned court concerned has passed the order impugned and as such, the same is justified. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 23.10.2024, it is clear that the learned court concerned has merely allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed that the appeal be placed before the learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur for consideration on the question of admission, thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the applicants by the impugned order. In so far as allowing the application for condonation of delay is concerned, learned court concerned, after considering the objections raised by the applicants and in light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court, has condoned the delay in filing the criminal appeal, hence, it cannot be held that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind. 7. In several cases, Hon'ble the Apex Court had explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay by way of observing that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice, the time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so A482 No. 44607 of 2024 2 suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date:- 18.08.2025/Vivek Kr. A482 No. 44607 of 2024 3 Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad