Madhya Pradesh High Court asks lawyer to perform 1 hour community service to restore case dismissed in default

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently allowed the restoration of a criminal case that was earlier dismissed for non-appearance of counsel, provided that the lawyer considers performing one hour of community service at a children’s home. [Narendra Upadhyay v Narendra Singh & Ors].Justice Anand Pathak suggested that the lawyer visit the Mercy Home at Gwalior with some food items and spend one hour with the “children/ inmates/ families” who were housed there. “This community service of one hour would not only be satisfying to the soul but would also give a message to the differently abled children that society and its members care for them and that they are not considered as the children of the Lesser God,” said the Court, in its October 6 order. .The Court added that compliance with this “suggestion” would be at the discretion of the lawyer. However, it also directed the lawyer to submit a report within 15 days on her experience after visiting the home. It also asked her to inform the Court of the status of the home and to make suggestions, if any were needed..On submission of the report, the criminal case would be restored to the file, the Court ordered. It also made the restoration of the case subject to the payment of costs of ₹1,000..The lawyer, meanwhile, accepted the Court’s suggestion and also assured that she would carry sufficient food items to the children’s home..By way of background, in February this year, a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had dismissed the 2013 criminal petition which was sought to be restored. In the plea, the petitioner had challenged a trial court order by which cognizance had been taken against him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989..When the matter was called on February 22 this year, the lawyer could not be present in Court on account of which the plea was dismissed in default.After a plea was made to restore the case, Justice Pathak opined that the reasons given for the lawyer's failure to appear in Court during the earlier hearing appeared to be genuine and bonafide. The judge was told that the counsel representing the petitioner was busy with some other court work on the said day..Justice Pathak proceeded to allow the restoration of the case, while expressing earnest hope that the lawyer would visit the children's home. "Graceful enough in her disposition, suggestion is readily accepted by counsel for the applicant and she undertakes not only to visit the aforesaid place but to carry sufficient food items and spend one hour time with them to understand them and to satisfy herself while doing such a pious work," the Court further recorded..Advocate Smrati Sharma represented the petitioner. Government Advocate Siraj Qureshi represented the State..[Read Order]