Uttarakhand High Court
Tiwari vs Unknown on 24 August, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
24.08.2022 C-482 No. 1679 of 2016
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the
respondent.
The present C-482 Application has been
preferred by the applicant as against the order dated
21.10.2016, rendered by the Sessions Judge in
Misc. Criminal Case No. 219 of 2016, Nirbhay
Tiwari vs. State of Uttarakhand and others,
whereby the applicant had put a challenge to the
order of 30.04.2016, as it was passed by the Court
of Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division/Judicial Magistrate) Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 5420 of
2015, Ajay Kumar and others vs. Nirbhay Tiwari,
as a consequence thereto, the present applicant and
one Mr. Mumtaz Khan, who has been tried for the
offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC,
they have been directed to put in appearance for the
purposes of framing of charge. But despite the date
fixed, they have not appeared, which had resulted
into passing of the order dated 30.04.2016.
This order was put to challenge in a
criminal revision which was preferred by the
present applicant on 27.09.2016, along with the
delay condonation application. Otherwise the
period prescribed for preferring of the revision, as
against the order is 90 days and it was observed by
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udham
Singh Nagar, that since the revision has been
preferred, with the delay of approximately sixty
days, the same could not be considered and the
applicant cannot be extended with the benefits of
the judgment, which they had sought to place
reliance i.e. 2009 CRLJ 2595 Prabhakaran
Kerba vs. State of Maharashtra and hence the
Court had declined to condone the delay by non
extension of the benefit of the ratio laid down by
the Bombay High Court.
This Court is of the view that the delay
which has chanced in filing the revision, was
suitably explained by the applicant in the delay
condonation application, which was filed in support
of the revision particularly, though all the reasons
which contributed for causing the delay are
referred to in Para-2 of the delay condonation
application, since it is a settled principle of law,
that a delay would be an aspect which is to be
liberally construed so that the party to a lis may
have an opportunity to get the dispute decided on
its own merit and particularly in the circumstances
of the present case when the applicant has put a
challenge to the order for non prosecuting the
proceedings within seven days, as provided under
Section 204, as observed in the operative portion of
the order passed by the court of Ist Additional Civil
Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate)
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
This Court is of the view that the revision
ought to have been considered on its own merits
after condonation of delay.
After having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the delay
condonation application filed in support of the
criminal revision preferred by the applicant, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order of
rejecting the delay condonation application, as
passed by the revisional court deserves to be set
aside and simultaneously, the delay which had
chanced in filing the revision would hereby stand
condoned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Udham Singh Nagar, is directed to decide the
revision itself on its own merits within a period of
four months from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the
C-482 Application stands disposed of, and the
impugned order of rejecting the delay condonation
dated 21.10.2016, would hereby stand quashed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
24.08.2022
Nahid
u
