The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently issued a ruling allowing the reinstatement of a criminal case that had been previously dismissed due to the lawyer's non-appearance, on the condition that the attorney commits to performing one hour of community service at a children's home.

Justice Anand Pathak recommended that the lawyer make a visit to the Mercy Home in Gwalior, bringing along some food items, and spend one hour with the "children, inmates, or families" residing there as a form of community service. 

The Court clarified that the lawyer's compliance with the "suggestion" to visit the Mercy Home and spend time with the residents there, as well as submit a report on her experience, would be left to her discretion. However, the court also issued additional directions, requiring the lawyer to submit a report within 15 days detailing her experience after the visit. Furthermore, the lawyer was asked to provide information about the current status of the home and make suggestions if she believed any improvements or changes were necessary.

The Court stated that upon the submission of the lawyer's report on her visit, the previously dismissed criminal case would be reinstated and included in the court's records. Furthermore, the court directed that the restoration of the case would be contingent upon the payment of ₹1,000 as costs. It's worth noting that the lawyer agreed to the Court's suggestion and also gave assurance that she would bring an ample supply of food items for the children's home as part of her commitment to performing one hour of community service in compliance with the court's orders.

In February of this year, a coordinated bench of the High Court rejected the 2013 criminal petition, which the petitioner had attempted to reinstate. The petitioner had contested a trial court decision that had charged them under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

On February 22 of this year, the case was scheduled for a hearing, but the lawyer was unable to attend the court, resulting in the plea being dismissed due to the lawyer's absence.

Subsequently, a request was made to reinstate the case, and Justice Pathak expressed the opinion that the reasons cited for the lawyer's absence during the previous hearing seemed valid and sincere. It was explained to the judge that the petitioner's counsel was engaged with other legal matters on that particular day.

Justice Pathak granted the request for reinstating the case and expressed a sincere wish that the lawyer would visit the children's home.

Case: Narendra Upadhyay v Narendra Singh & Ors, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43706 of 2023. 

Read/Download order: Narendra Upadhyay Vs. Narendra Singh and Ors.