HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5547 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, opposite party no. 2 was granted two weeks' time, as a last opportunity, to file a counter affidavit. However, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2. 2. In view of above, the opportunity to file a counter affidavit by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, is hereby closed. 3. Mr. B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. representing the State are present. Though the name of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate is duly published in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no. 2 but neither he nor anyone on his behalf is present to oppose the present Criminal Revision. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Criminal Revision is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State and on the basis of perusal of record. 5. Heard Mr. B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the material available on record. 6. Revisionist Dinesh has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj (hereinafter Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pradeep Kumar Dinesh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 605 of 2024, Dinesh v. Ranjani Devi, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., whereby the Trial Court rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application by the revisionist. 7. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the present Criminal Revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed without considering the material evidence available on record and, therefore, a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order, allowing the present Criminal Revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist with a delay of only 13 days. However, the Trial Court, without properly considering the circumstances explained by the revisionist, rejected his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is, thus, contended that the delay of 13 days could have been condoned by imposing appropriate costs, but the Trial Court adopted a rather harsh approach against the revisionist. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the revisionist submits prayed that the impugned order be set aside by this Court allowing the present Criminal Revision. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present revision and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that as recorded in the impugned order, the Trial Court, in the parent proceedings, passed an order dated 29.07.2022 holding that the notice has been duly served upon the revisionist. Thereafter, on 08.11.2023, the matter was proceeded with ex parte and ultimately, an ex parte judgment and order was passed on 23.02.2024. The revisionist appeared before the Trial Court after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, with a delay of thirteen days and filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. It is, thus, submitted that the revisionist was well aware of the pendency of the proceedings and was sufficiently vigilant about the matter, yet he did not take any steps to contest the proceedings until the CRLR No. 5547 of 2025 2 matter has been finally adjudicated ex parte. His conduct, therefore, indicates an attempt to delay the proceedings. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no lenient view is warranted in favour of the revisionist and the present Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the revisionist could not overcome the same. 12. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the revisionist has not approached the proceedings with due diligence and has failed to avail the opportunity afforded by the Trial Court. In such circumstances, no indulgence is warranted in favour of the revisionist. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Criminal Revision, which is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed. September 21, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 5547 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad