Allowed

Suvarna Jagdish Dadhakar v. Krishna P. Gurav and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Nov 2022WP/3376/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this criminal writ petition quashed the order of the District Judge rejecting the condonation of delay in filing a revision application. It held that time taken to obtain the certified copy of the magistrate's order constituted sufficient cause, directing the Sessions Judge to decide the revision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21st December, 2019 is quashed; the Sessions Judge is directed to decide the Revision Application on merits.

Suvarna Jagdish Dadhakar Vs Krishna P. Gurav and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

 49-WP.3376.2022.doc

¶2

SSA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3376 OF 2022

¶5

Survarna Jagdish Dadhakar … Petitioner
V/s.

¶6

Krishna P. Gurav & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

*****

¶8

Mr. R. G. Panchal a/w S. S. Gundajwar, Mr. Dilip Medhe, Mr. A. R.
Kori, Mr. Pramod Yadav for Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Anjali Purav Yajurvedi for Respondent No. 1

¶10

Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for Respondent (State)

¶11

*****

¶12

CORAM: AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED: 15th NOVEMBER, 2022

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.Rule. Rule is made returnable, by consent of parties.

¶15

2.The challenge in this order is rejection of an
Application to condone delay in filing Revision Application. The
petitioner is original complainant, who had filed a complaint
alleging commission of offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

3.The learned Magistrate by order dated 20th April, 2018
issued process only against accused no.1. The order of refusal to
issue process against accused nos.2 and 3 was challenged by way
of Revision. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is dated
20th April, 2018. The petitioner applied for certified copy on 23rd

¶17

¶18

 49-WP.3376.2022.doc

¶19

SSA

¶20

April, 2018 which was received by him on 12th June, 2018. The
period provided under the statute to file Revision is 90 days.
Therefore, in my opinion, if the period taken for getting certified
copy is excluded, the petitioner has made out a sufficient cause for
explaining delay, if any, in filing the Revision Application.

¶21

4.In my view, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was
not justified in rejecting the Application, as it appears that he has
filed the Application within 90 days and in any case, there cannot
be delay of more than one or two days in filing the Application for
Revision.

¶22

5.Considering the explanation in paragraph no.9 of the
impugned order, the petitioner had made out a case. Hence, the
following order is passed :-

¶23

(i).The impugned order dated 21^st December, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan is quashed and set aside.

¶24

(ii).The learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the Revision Application on merits in accordance with law.

¶25

6. The Petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Suvarna Jagdish Dadhakar v. Krishna P. Gurav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvarna Jagdish Dadhakar v. Krishna P. Gurav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Arvindbhai Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devendra Arvindbahi Parmar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajeet Hariram Lakhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prajpal Nanaso Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Babubhai Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tamilselven Chelaipallar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.