Dismissed

Smt Geeta v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024CRLRD/343/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J. (Court No. 86, Allahabad High Court) rejected the delay condonation application in Criminal Revision Defective No. 343 of 2024. The revisionist filed the petition after 4151 days without plausible explanation, citing financial crisis and lack of counsel. The court found the delay deliberate, rejected the explanation, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was rejected; the criminal revision was dismissed.

Smt Geeta vs State of Up and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148727

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 343 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Smt Geeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Order on delay condonation application:

¶7

As per office report, this criminal revision has been filed with the delay of 4151 days without any plausible explanation of delay. 2. In this matter impugned summoning order was passed on 20.6.2012 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2012 case crime no. 195 of 2011 under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Badalpur, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar whereby the revisionist was summoned to face trial in the aforesaid Section and now after more than 12 years she has approached this Court with the prayer to set aside the aforesaid order.

¶8

It has been averred in the affidavit that due to financial crisis and lack of legal advice, the revision could not be filed within time. Learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that for the reasons stated in the delay condonation application, sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay and the Court is empowered to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by Lrs. AIR Online 2015 SC 93 .

¶9

Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable for want of sufficient cause whereas in certain other cases delay of a very long range can be condoned as the

¶10

explanation thereof is satisfactory. Power to condone delay has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice to the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice, deserves to be preferred. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Law will not protect people who are careless about their rights.

¶11

So far as the case law relied by the learned counsel for revisionist is concerned, I find that it does not go to help the revisionist in any way in this matter.

¶12

In view of the above discussions and keeping in view the explanation given by the applicant, the court is not satisfied with the same. Delay on the part of the revisionist is deliberate and no cogent reason is found for condonation of delay. I find no good ground to condone the delay in filing the present revision. The delay condonation application is accordingly, rejected.

¶13

Order on Revision:

¶14

Since the application for condoning the delay has been rejected, the revision also does not survive. Consequently, the criminal revision is also dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Fhd

¶16

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Geeta v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geeta v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Meena Devi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amrita Gupta and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Subedar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohtash vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ankita Gupta vs State of U.P. and 5 Others