Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the judgment and orders dated 10.12.2012 and 03.08.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court NO.2, Etawah in Criminal Misc. Case NO.4 of 2011 arising out of case crime no. 12 of 2004 (State vs. Amarpal and others) under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Vedpura, District Etawah and the judgment and order dated 2.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Etawah in Criminal Revisiion No.97 of 2015 arising out of case crime no. 12 of 2004 under sections 498-A, 323/34, 506(2) IPC and 4 Dowry prohibition Act, P.S. Vedpura, District Etawah and further for a direction to the lower appellate court to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 pending before it expeditiously.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners along with two others namely Smt. Sushila and Smt. Jai Devi had been convicted vide judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 in Criminal Case No.3512 of 2007 (State vs. Amarpal and 3 others) in case crime no. 12 of 2004 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Vedpura, District Etawah whereby the petitioners Amarpal and Brijesh Kumar and two others namely Smt. Sushila and Smt. Jai Devi were held guilty and were awarded punishment under section 3/4 D.P. Act with two years R.I. each, fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default of payment of fine, six months additional R.I.; under section 498A IPC three years R.I. each, fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, six months additional R.I. each; under section 323/34 IPC with six months R.I. each, fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, one month additional R.I.each; under section 506(2) IPC with two years R.I. each, fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, six months additional R.I. and it was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The above punishment was awarded in the absence of accused Smt. Sushila and Smt Jai Devi because they were absent at the time of delivery of judgment.
(3.) All the four accused had preferred an appeal no. 56 of 2008 (Amarpal and three others vs. State of U.P.) in which Additional District Judge, Court No. 8 Etawah allowed the appeal partly and remanded the matter back to the court below with a direction that it shall hear the accused Smt. Sushila and Smt. Jai Devi on the point of sentence. With the aforesaid direction, the file was remanded to the court below with the direction to the parties to appear before it on 24.6.2009.;