Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144870 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30516 of 2025 Applicant :- Harnarayan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pandey,Shambhavi Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Etawah in Criminal Misc. Case No.409 of 2023 (Har Narayan Yadav vs. State of U.P.) under section 5 of Limitation Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Etawah. Further prayer has been made to direct the court below to hear and decide the delay condonation application being Criminal Misc. Case No.409 of 2023 on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that initially an F.I.R. has been lodged by the applicant/informant against opposite party nos.2 to 8 being Case Crime No.498 of 2010, under section 395 I.P.C., wherein after detail investigation conducted by concerned Investigating Officer, charge-sheet has been submitted against opposite party no.2 to 8 in pursuance to sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C., whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah and all the accused have been summoned. Thereafter on dated 20.10.2015 and 29.03.2017, charges were framed against the accused persons and trial was commenced, wherein without looking into the facts of the case and without appreciating the evidences on record, all the accused/opposite party nos.2 to 8 have been acquitted from all the charges vide order dated 12.06.2023. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal has been preferred by the applicant/informant on dated 11.08.2023 along with delay condonation application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, which was dismissed on the ground of for want of prosecution, which impugned the present application. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the settled proposition of law that a criminal appeal alone or along with delay condonation application cannot be dismissed on the ground of for want of prosecution. For substantiating her submissions, learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgement rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2023 in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.8883 of 2023 (Pappu and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another), highlighting para-8 which is as under:- "Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents including the impugned order, judgements relied by learned counsel for the applicants; it is evident that as the prosecution in question is a result of some matrimonial dispute, the complaint was filed by private respondent, in which, applicants were convicted by learned trial court for the offenses U/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also evident that the appeal was filed after some delay and the application for condonation of delay was rejected by learned trial court on the ground that the same was not pressed by the counsel. It is well settled that it is the duty of the court to provide amicus curiae, in case, the party is unable to engage its counsel and, in case, there is application for condonation of delay then it may not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order dated 07.04.2023 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Barabanki is liable to be set aside." 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made by learned counsel for applicant, but he could not dispute the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for applicant in case of Pappu (supra). 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgement rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pappu (supra), the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant seems to be justified and the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 is liable to be set-aside. 7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Etawah in Criminal Misc. Case No.409 of 2023 (Har Narayan Yadav vs. State of U.P.) under section 5 of Limitation Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Etawah is hereby set- aside, the matter is remitted back to learned court of Additional District Judge Ist, Etawah for deciding the application under section 5 of Limitation Act on merits. 8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad