Ranu Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105822
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the record shows that a lower court has recorded its satisfaction regarding service of notice on the opposite party and has proceeded to decide the matter in a well-considered judgment addressing all relevant aspects, an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside such judgment on the ground that it was passed ex-parte will be rejected, as no illegality or irregularity can be demonstrated in the impugned order. Where a court decision rejects an application under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a well-considered manner addressing all relevant legal aspects, an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging such rejection will be rejected as no illegality or irregularity can be demonstrated.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Amresh Bahadur Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to 4 and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. This is an application for restoration for restoring the order dated 11.03.2026.
4. The cause shown for absence in the affidavit filed in support of recall/restoration application is sufficient.
5. The recall/restoration application is allowed. The matter is restored to its original number.
Order on petition
6. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ranu Pandey, with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order dated 16.1.2023 passed by Principal ) Judge Family Court Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. Case No. 481 of 2022 (Ranu Pandey Vs Sapna Pandey and others under section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. District Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as impugned ex-parte order dated 30.6.2022 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Gautam Buddh Nagar in case No. 479 of 2021 (Sapna Pandey and others Vs. Ranu Pandey) under section 125 Cr.P.C. District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 16.1.2023 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. Case No. 481 of 2022 (Ranu Pandey Vs Sapna Pandey and others ) under section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. District Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as impugned ex-parte order dated 30.6.2022 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Gautam Buddh Nagar in case No. 479 of 2021 (Sapna Pandey and others Vs. Ranu Pandey) under section 125 Cr.P.C. District Gautam Buddh Nagar during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble court so that justice may be done otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that an order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, the Application No. 3-Kha under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. of the applicant was dismissed which is under challenge before this Court and further the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. allowing the said application ex-parte directing the applicant to pay Rs. 12,000/- to the applicant no.1 therein from the date of application and Rs. 12,000/- each to the minor children from the date of application totally Rs. 36,000/- per month be paid to them and the amount of arrears till date to them be paid within two months. It is submitted that the said order dated 30.06.2022 was an ex-parte order without hearing the applicant and thus the same be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to 4 opposed the prayer for quashing.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that records show that the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 is well considered and the court concerned has recorded its satisfaction regarding service of notice on the opposite party no.2 therein and then proceeded to decide the matter. Nothing could be shown regarding any other illegality or irregularity in the same. Further the order dated 16.01.2023 rejecting the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. of the applicant which is also under challenge could not be shown to be having any illegality or irregularity therein. The judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 is well considered and also considers all the aspects as have been held to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha : 2021 (2) SCC 324.
10. In these circumstances, looking to the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court concerned, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 7, 2026
M. ARIF
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free