Madras High Court

Suganya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2025

                                                                                       CRL.MP(MD)No.11430 of 2025


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 08.10.2025

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

                                          CRL.MP(MD)No.11430 of 2025
                                                     In
                                         CRL RC(MD)SR.No.31919 of 2025

                    Suganya,
                    W/o.Ramesh,
                    Maduramasaniyapuram,
                    Middle Street,
                    Madukkur,
                    Thanjavur District.                                                         ...Petitioner
                                                                   Vs

                    1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                      Represented by the Inspector of Police,
                      Madukkur Police Station,
                      Madukkur,
                      Thanjavur District.
                      (Crime No.586 of 2021).

                    2.Murugesan,
                      S/o.Govindharaj,
                      Middle Street,
                      Kaadandhakudi,
                      Madurabashaniyapuram,
                      Pattukottai Taluk,
                      Thanjavur District.


                    1/16




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )
                                                                                             CRL.MP(MD)No.11430 of 2025




                    3.Vishva,
                      S/o.Murugesan,
                      Middle Street,
                      Kaadandhakudi,
                      Madurabashaniyapuram,
                      Pattukottai Taluk,
                      Thanjavur District.

                    4.Ajay,
                      S/o.Murugesan,
                      Middle Street,
                      Kaadandhakudi,
                      Madurabashaniyapuram,
                      Pattukottai Taluk,
                      Thanjavur District.                                                        ...Respondents

                    PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to
                    condone the delay of 466 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case in
                    Crl.RC(MD)SR.No.31919 of 2025, against the order passed by the learned
                    Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai under Section 468 Cr.P.C dated 08.02.2024
                    in connection with Crime No.586 of 2021.

                                  For Petitioner            : Ms.Subiksha
                                                              For Mr.B.Anandan

                                  For Respondents           : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad
                                                              Government Advocate
                                                              (Criminal Side) (R-1)




                    2/16




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )
                                                                                         CRL.MP(MD)No.11430 of 2025




                                                           ORDER

Heard Ms.Subiksha, learned counsel for Mr.B.Anandan, learned

counsel, appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad,

learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who accepts notice on

behalf of the 1st Respondent.

2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 466 days in filing

the Criminal Revision Case in Crl.RC(MD)SR.No.31919 of 2025 filed

against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai

under Section 468 Cr.P.C dated 08.02.2024 in connection with Crime No.

586 of 2021.

3. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Petition and

necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

a) The accused persons/Respondents 2 to 4 insulted the petitioner with

lewd words, beat her with a rod causing injuries, pushed her down, hit her

with a stick, beat her with hands and feet, kicked her and threatened to kill

her. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the 1st Respondent Police

station and an FIR was registered in Crime No.586 of 2021 dated

22.07.2021 under Sections 294(b), 352, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of

TNPWH Act. No final report was filed. The Judicial Magistrate,

Pattukottai, by order dated 08.02.2024, suo moto closed the FIR in Crime

No.586 of 2021 on the ground of being barred by limitation under Section

468(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section

200 Cr.P.C on 12.12.2024 praying the trial court to consider her petition,

record her evidence, examine documents, issue summons to the accused

and impose appropriate criminal action. No action has been taken against

the accused. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner was unable to file

the present Criminal Revision Petition within the stipulated time, resulting

in a delay of 466 days. Hence, the present petition is filed along with a

prayer to condone the said delay.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay of 466

days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is neither deliberate nor

wilfull. Hence, she prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the

petition by condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

5. Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate

(Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st Respondent, submits that the Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is,

prima facie, not legally maintainable. He further contends that the

miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of the inordinate delay of 466

days in filing the criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the

contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also

perused the entire materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

7. The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 466 days

in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

8. The standard period of limitation for filing a Criminal Revision

Petition under Section 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), is 90 days

from the date of the impugned order, as stipulated under Article 131 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. In the present case, the Criminal Revision Petition

has been filed with a delay of 466 days. However, under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, the Court is empowered to condone the delay if the

Petitioner is able to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not preferring the

revision within the prescribed limitation period. The explanation offered

must be reasonable, bona fide, and not indicative of negligence or inaction.

9. After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a

satisfactory explanation nor any reasons for the inordinate delay of 466

days in filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

condonation of delay. Hence, the petition is time-barred and cannot be

sustained on the ground of laches.

10. The expression “sufficient cause“ and satisfactory explanation has

been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial

justice and generally a delay in preferring a petition may be condoned in

interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack

of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In the

case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, reported in 1987(2)

SCC 107, the Honourable Supreme Court said that when substantial

justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of

substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim

to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate

delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of

its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is

capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

11. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Honourable Supreme Court was

pleased to observe as under:-

“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.“

12. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties.

They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective

that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights.

They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy

is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute

relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for

redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the

wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes

would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by

approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy.

Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending

uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is

founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to

litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time,

the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation

expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of

finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would

result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but

simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel

carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent

and continued litigation.

13. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is

always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a matter by

not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but then the

words “sufficient cause“ show that delay, if any, occurred, should not be

deliberate, negligent and due to casual approach of concerned litigant, but,

it should be bona fide, and, for the reasons beyond his control, and, in any

case should not lack bona fide. If the explanation does not smack of lack of

bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the litigant, but,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

when there is apparent casual approach on the part of litigant, the approach

of Court is also bound to change. Lapse on the part of litigant in

approaching Court within time is understandable but a total inaction for

long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in

absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of litigant, would add

to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him.

14. I need not to burden this judgment with a catena of decisions

explaining and laying down as to what should be the approach of Court on

construing “sufficient cause“ and it would be suffice to refer a very few of

them besides those already referred.

15. In the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari,

reported, AIR 1969 SC 575, a three Judge Bench of the Court said that

unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a

party of the protection, the application must not be thrown out or any delay

cannot be refused to be condoned.

16. The Privy Council, in the case of Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

Ram reported in ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94, observed that true guide for a

court to exercise the discretion is whether the appellant acted with

reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds

good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly

been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and

others, AIR 2005 SC 2191.

17. In the case of Vedabai @ Vijayanatabai Baburao Vs.

Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 608,

the Court said that under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it should adopt a

pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the

delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the

former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant

factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case

no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal

approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the

basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.

18. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. Vs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, reported

in (2008) 17 SCC 448, in para 17 of the judgment, the Court said :-

“...The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and state claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights.“

19. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012 (5) SCC 157, in para

18 of the judgment, the Court said as under:-

“What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bonafides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and / or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest.“

20. After taking into consideration the averments made in the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing the

learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that the

Petitioner has explained the delay in filing the present Criminal Revision

Petition.

21. In my view, the kind of explanation rendered herein does not

satisfy the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court that if delay has

occurred for reasons, which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should

be reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, I find that here is a

case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part

of the Petitioner, which has remain virtually unexplained at all. Therefore,

I do not find any reason to exercise my judicial discretion exercising

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

judiciously so as to justify the condonation of delay in the present case.

22. In the result, in the light of the above said observations and

discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above,

this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 466 days in filing

the Criminal Revision Petition is baseless and the same is hereby rejected.