HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 698 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the state, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant revision has been field alongwith an application for condonation of delay and prayer has been made delay of 2255 days be condoned in filling the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, the revisionist has been summoned vide order dated 08.11.2017 and he never received any notice of summons, but was all of sudden arrested on 24.09.2023. The main contention and ground of the revisionist is that, the notice or summons or N.B.W was never in the knowledge of the revisionist and he came to know of his arrest by the police and, therefore, the revisionist not at fault for delay caused in filling the present revision. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that, the main accused Anil Paswan was having some illicit relationship with the wife of the opposite party no. 2 and finally the wife of the opposite party no. 2-Nisha (deceased) was allegedly murdered by the revisionist and the main accused Anil Paswan. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that, as far as the revisionist and the main accused Anil Paswan are concerned they are close relatives and are brother-in-law of each other (Bahenoi and Sala) and, therefore, it is beyond imagination that the revisionist was not aware or was not having knowledge of the said case crime pending against him or the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dewendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manish Gupta Raju .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) knowledge of the summons issued against the revisionist on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has lastly prayed that, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969. 5. Having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, the only explanation, which has been given in the delay condonation application is that, the revisionist was not at all aware about the pendency of any criminal trial against him and was not having any knowledge of the summons or the warrants those have been issued by the concerned trial court, against him. However, the fact remains, that the main accused Anil Paswan and the revisionist are close relatives and are having relationship brother-in-law of each other. Moreover, having regard to the law laid down in the case of Shivamma (Dead) (Supra), no good ground has been made in filing the application for condonation of delay and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the delay condonation application is accordingly dismissed and no further order is required to be passed in the present revision. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is consigned to record. October 9, 2025 Vikram CRLRD No. 698 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad