Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 3
Cr Rev No. 252/2024
UDAY RATRA Vs. STATE & ORS.
20.01.2025
Present: Sh. Manindra Dubey, Ld. LAC for the revisionist.
Sh. B S Dagar, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the
State/respondent.
Arguments heard on the application for condonation of
delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
01. The present revision petition was filed against the impugned
order passed by Ld. Magistrate dated 27.07.2023, whereby the
application for direction to conduct investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was dismissed in default for non appearance and non
prosecution. In the impugned order, it is observed that no one has
appeared on behalf of revisionist for consecutive three dates and
accordingly, the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed in
default for non appearance.
02. Challenging the impugned order dated 27.07.2023, the present
revision petition was filed on 02.05.2024. There is delay of 174 days
in filing the petition.
03. Ld. LAC argued that after the impugned order, the revisionist
approached New Delhi DLSA for appointment of Legal Aid Counsel
to file the restoration application. The LAC Pranav Gupta was
assigned vide letter dated 23.12.2023 and he advised the petitioner to
-- 1 of 3 --
Page 2 of 3
approach High Court for filing appropriate application. It is further
argued that the revisionist went to the Office of Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee and he was advised to file it before the
Sessions Court. It is submitted that delay in filing present revision
petition is neither deliberate nor intentional.
04. Ld. Addl. PP argued that there is no sufficient cause to explain
the delay in filing the revision petition. It is argued that the revisionist
approached New Delhi DLSA after five months of passing of the
impugned order. It is further argued that in view of unexplained delay,
the present revision petition should be dismissed as time barred.
05. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that any petition
after the prescribed period shall be dismissed. Section 5 of the
Limitation Act confer discretion to the court to condone the delay and
any appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period,
if the petitioner satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
06. It is incumbent upon the revisionist to render sufficient cause
for delay. Admittedly, there is delay of 174 days in preferring the
revision petition. As per the application, the revisionist was advised by
Legal Aid Counsel to approach High Court and for that reason, he
could not file the revision petition within the prescribed period. It is
pertinent to note that the revisionist had gone to the Office of New
-- 2 of 3 --
Page 3 of 3
Delhi DLSA on 23.12.2023 i.e. after around 05 months of passing of
the impugned order. By the time, he had approached the DLSA, the
prescribed period for filing revision petition had already lapsed. The
revisionist is seeking restoration of his petition which has been
dismissed for non appearance on three consecutive dates and in order
to challenge the said order, he filed the petition after the delay of 06
months of prescribed period.
07. Seeking restoration of the application being dismissed in default
for non appearance on three dates of hearing, the revisionist had no
explanation for delay of around six months in the filing of revision
petition. The law is not suppose to come to the rescue of the person,
who sleeps over their rights for long. Considering the facts and
circumstances, the court is satisfied that the petitioner had no
sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing the petition.
In the light of facts and submissions, the present
application is devoid of any merit and the petition is hopelessly time
barred and accordingly dismissed.
TCR be sent back to the court concerned alongwith copy
of order.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Pawan Kumar)
ASJ/Spl.FTC/20.01.2025
-- 3 of 3 --