Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CR No. 299/21
Sushil Kumar Bansal v. State and Ors.
18.11.2021
Fresh revision petition has been filed. It be checked and
registered.
Present : Sh. Deepak Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist,
through VC.
The present revision petition has been filed against the order
of Ld. Trial Court dated 15.03.2016 whereby the application of the
revisionist u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
At the very outset, on the face of it the revision petition is
helplessly barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has
contended that he has filed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay.
In the application u/s 5 of the limitation Act it is contended
that the revisionist filed a complaint case before Sh. Harvinder Singh, Ld.
MM New Delhi alongwith application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for seeking
direction to register a case on his complaint against the accused persons. It
is further contended that the Ld. MM had disposed of the application u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15.03.2016. It is further contended that
revisionist is the son of Sh. Raj Kishore Bansal, who is a senior citizen and
victim of offence committed by respondent no. 2 and 3. During the period
of Covid19, the father of revisionist has been suffering from various old
age related ailments and there was no one in the family to look after him
PpgPaPage no. (Parveen Singh)
Page 1 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ03/NDD/PHC/ND/15.11.2021
-- 1 of 3 --
and therefore, he could not file the revision petition within time. It is further
contended that delay in filing the revision petition on the part of revisionist
was neither deliberate nor willful but due to the aforesaid reason.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the
revisionist has a very strong case and he can prove this if an opportunity is
given to bring evidence. Therefore, the petition may not be merely
dismissed on the technicality of limitation. He has contended that grand son
of the revisionist had expired due to blood cancer and due to this the
revisionist was in stock that he could not file the revision petition. On being
inquired by the court, he has submitted that the grand son of the revisionist
had expired in the year 2014. He has further contended that Covid19 had
further obstructed the revisionist from filing the revision petition in time.
I have considered the submissions. It is to be seen that the
impugned order was passed on 15.03.2016. At the risk of sounding
insensitive I must observe that the ground taken by the revisionist that his
grand son had expired is not tangible for condoning of delay in filing this
revision petition because, the grand son of the revisionist had expired much
prior to passing of the impugned order i.e. in the year 2014. With regard to
the ground that the father of revisionist was suffering from certain aliments,
no record of such ailments has been placed on file. Even otherwise only the
fact that the father of revisionist was suffering from ailments would not be
sufficient to condone the long delay of more than five years and it would
have to be further shown that the ailments were of such a nature that they
prevented the revisionist from taking timely steps to challenge the
impugned order. A further ground has been taken that due to Covid19 the
PpgPaPage no. (Parveen Singh)
Page 1 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ03/NDD/PHC/ND/15.11.2021
-- 2 of 3 --
present revision petition could not be filed. I again find that this cannot be a
ground for condonation to delay as period of limitation had expired much
prior to the onset of Covid19 pandemic.
I accordingly find that no sufficient ground has been shown
for condoning the delay in filing the present revision petition. The
application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly dismissed.
Resultantly the present revision petition, being barred by
limitation, is also dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Parveen Singh)
ASJ03/NDD/PHC/ND/18.11.2021
It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted manner
and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the
parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.
(Reader)
18.11.2021
PpgPaPage no. (Parveen Singh)
Page 1 (Parveen Singh)
ASJ03/NDD/PHC/ND/15.11.2021
-- 3 of 3 --