Ravendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 815 of 2024

Ravendra Singh

.....Revisionist(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Piyush Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prem Sagar Verma, Sunil Kumar

¶4

Court No. - 86

¶5

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶6

Order on:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024

¶7

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present.

¶8

Besides the present revision, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision has also been moved, seeking condonation of 1941 days.

¶9

Ground taken in the application for condonation of delay was perused and the revisionist in para 4 of the affidavit has taken the following grounds in respect of the condonation of delay, which reads as under:-

¶10

" Para No. 4:- That thereafter when revisionist came his village he came to know police personnel search the revisionist with regard to some criminal case thereafter revisionist met with his counsel and inquire about the matter then he came into knowledge of proceedings of present case and revisionist also came to know that in pursuance of present proceeding a recovery was also issued against the revisionist thereafter revisionist arranging the expenses for filing the present criminal revision approached before this Hon'ble Court and filed the present criminal revision."

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has prayed that, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Learned A.G.A. for the State has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶12

CRLRD No. 815 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

Shivamma (Dead) Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 .

¶15

It is needless to say that, every case has to be decided on its own merit, but the conduct of, the litigant and the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay are equally important. Whereas the fact remains that the revisionist herein was issued notice by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court concerned, thereafter the revisionist appeared in the court and filed written statement against the application moved by opp. party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The ground taken by the revisionist in the application for condonation of delay is not only false but incorrect on the face of record, which is evident from the order 17.9.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya.

¶16

Under the circumstances, no plausible explanation has been given or sufficient cause has been shown by the revisionist seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. Moreover, having regard to the law laid down in the case of Shivamma (Dead) (Supra), no good ground has been made in filing the application for condonation of delay of 1941 days and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the delay condonation application is accordingly dismissed and no further order is required to be passed in the present revision.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is consigned to record.

¶18

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶19

March 16, 2026

¶20

Gss

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravendra Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravendra Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nilesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Rameshchandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shesh Mani Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others