Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83064 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1943 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Saxena Alias Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Abhay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging order dated 15.03.2024 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Moradabad has rejected the discharge application moved by the accused-applicant only on the ground that his Advocate did not appear to argue despite last opportunity having been granted by the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the date of dismissal of discharge application, the applicant's counsel moved an adjournment application on personal ground citing his illness and requested for fixation of another date. He further submits that though F.I.R. was lodged under various provisions of I.P.C., the applicant was chargesheeted only under Section 447 IPC and has a good case for discharge and in case one opportunity is granted to the applicant to argue the discharge application, the same shall be argued without seeking any further adjournment. It is further contended that till date, charges have not been framed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced. By referring to the order sheet, it is contended that the applicant is deliberately avoiding advancing of arguments on discharge application inasmuch as on 06.12.2023, last opportunity was granted by the court concerned and then on two occasions, the matter could not be heard and, thereafter, on 21.02.2024 also last opportunity was granted. Submission is that the court has been liberal in granting the opportunities to argue the matter but the applicant or his counsel were deliberately avoiding the proceedings. 5. Considering the material on record and the order sheet of the case, though it is true that twice last opportunity was granted to the applicant to advance arguments, on the date when the order impugned was passed, the applicant's counsel had moved an adjournment application citing his sickness. Under such circumstances, adjournment could have been granted by the Court by imposing some cost, however, matter of discharge being statutory proceedings, in the opinion of the Court, the application should not have been rejected. Nevertheless, since prior to dismissal of the discharge application, matter was posted for arguments for a period of about four months, it is a fit case where reasonable cost should be imposed upon the applicant but at the same time, the impugned order should be set aside granting opportunity to the applicant to argue discharge application. 6. Consequently, the revision is allowed. 7. The impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Moradabad is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.2500/- by the applicant before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today. 8. On deposit of cost, discharge application shall stand revived and restored to its original number and a date shall be fixed by the court in the first week of July, 2025. 9. On the date so fixed, the discharge application shall be argued by the applicant's counsel and no further adjournment shall be taken by him failing which, the benefit granted under this order shall vanish. 10. The cost of Rs.2500/- shall be paid to the informant on the date fixed for hearing. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad