Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mangaroo Vs. the State of U.P.

Mangaroo vs The State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 11, 1991
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/476457

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 8184 of 1991
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 147, 322 and 504

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mangaroo

Advocate D.R.S. Chauhan, Adv.

Respondent

The State of U.P.

Advocate D.G.A.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 147, 322 and 504
Reported In
1992CriLJ1397

Excerpt

- .....were issued. the personal attendance of all the accused persons were exempted by the order of the court. the complaintant of the case moved an application for cancelling the order exempting the personal attendance of the accused, mangaroo, who in fact is employed in middle-east at dubai. the personal attendance of the accused was exempted and he left india for joining the service at dubai without obtaining prior permission of the court. therefore, an application for cancellation of exemption of personal attendance of applicant was moved which was allowed. notices were issued for personal appearance in the court. since the applicant was not in india, the applicant moved an application giving all the facts, but the learned magistrate passed order for appearance before the court and issued process for his appearance in the court on the ground that the applicant left india without obtaining prior permission from the court. the said order was challenged in revision before the revisional court and the same was with delay and the same was rejected on the ground of limitation.3. i have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order in question. i do not find any error of law or procedure in the order impugned. however, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence as alleged in the complaint, i consider a direction may be issued to the court below do modify its order after taking into consideration that the accused person against whom the orders have been passed is at present out of india. it would serve the ends of justice if the same application is again moved through counsel before the court to exempt the personal attendance in the case. if the complainant moves such an application for cancellation of exemption out of revenge or in order to pressurise the applicant so that he may lose his job in a foreign country only to face trial which is not for a very serious offence involving moral turpitude, it should not be permitted......

Full Judgment

N.L. Ganguli, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order of the learned revisional Court dismissing the revision barred by limitation.

2. In a criminal complaint under Sections 322 (sic), 147, 504, I.P.C., the applicant, Mangaroo, along with 3 of his family members were arrayed as accused persons. The notices were issued. The personal attendance of all the accused persons were exempted by the order of the Court. The complaintant of the case moved an application for cancelling the order exempting the personal attendance of the accused, Mangaroo, who in fact is employed in Middle-East at Dubai. The personal attendance of the accused was exempted and he left India for joining the service at Dubai without obtaining prior permission of the Court. Therefore, an application for cancellation of exemption of personal attendance of applicant was moved which was allowed. Notices were issued for personal appearance in the Court. Since the applicant was not in India, the applicant moved an application giving all the facts, but the learned Magistrate passed order for appearance before the Court and issued process for his appearance in the Court on the ground that the applicant left India without obtaining prior permission from the Court. The said order was challenged in revision before the revisional Court and the same was with delay and the same was rejected on the ground of limitation.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order in question. I do not find any error of law or procedure in the order impugned. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence as alleged in the complaint, I consider a direction may be issued to the Court below do modify its order after taking into consideration that the accused person against whom the orders have been passed is at present out of India. It would serve the ends of justice if the same application is again moved through counsel before the Court to exempt the personal attendance in the case. If the complainant moves such an application for cancellation of exemption out of revenge or in order to pressurise the applicant so that he may lose his job in a foreign country only to face trial which is not for a very serious offence involving moral turpitude, it should not be permitted. I, thus, direct the learned Magistrate to grant personal exemption from appearance to the applicant if he moves an application through counsel for that purpose before the Court concerned. If after the conclusion of the trial, the Court is of the view that the accused is likely to be convicted, he may pass the order directing the accused person to appear in person and grant him such reasonable time as to enable him to come back from Dubai to appear before the Court.

4. With these directions the petition is disposed of. I have heard the learned counsel for the State, He has no objection to the disposal of the case at this stage. A certified copy of order be issued in 3 days.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial