Allowed

Tanaji Sitaram Sulke v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2024APL/1409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged rejection of condonation of 61-day delay in preferring revision against an order under Section 125 CrPC, citing his ill health and lack of assistance at about 70 years of age. The High Court found the delay neither inordinate nor deliberate and condoned it.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 61 days condoned; revision to be registered and decided by Sessions Judge within three months.

Tanaji Sitaram Sulke Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

23-APL-1409-22.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1409 OF 2022

¶6

Tanaji Sitaram Sulke … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Daulat G. Khamkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Naina Boraste i/b. Mr. Girish Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 19^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This application take exception to the order of rejection of condonation of delay caused in preferring revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was aged about 70 years when the application was filed for condonation of delay. It his submission that reason of his own ill health as well as he having no assistance has been cited for condonation thereof. It is submitted that condonation of delay of 61 days ought not to have been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶12

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2024.08.20 KILAJE 11:16:02 +0700 3. Learned counsel for the original complainant as well as learned

1/2

23-APL-1409-22.doc

S.S.Kilaje

APP opposing the application by contending that no specific reasons are mentioned for the purpose of condonation of delay and as such order impugned cannot be interfered.

¶17

This Court by order dated 03.02.2023 has directed the applicant to deposit the amount for sum of Rs. 75,000/- before the Sessions Court and the said amount is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent / original complainant. It is thus clear that the interest of contesting respondent has been duly taken care by order of this Court. As far as the delay is concerned, though it is mentioned in the application that delay of about 15 to 16 days but in fact the delay of 61 days the delay is not inordinate nor deliberate. Owing to the age of the applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have accepted the reason of ill health mentioned for the condonation of delay, so also lack of assistance to him.

¶18

Having regard to these facts, application is allowed. Delay stands condoned. Revision be registered. Considering the fact that the contesting respondent is aged more than 90 years, the revision application be decided by the Sessions Judge within a period of three months from today. It shall be responsibility of applicant herein to bring to the notice this order to Revisional Court.

¶19

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶20

2/2

Tanaji Sitaram Sulke v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji Sitaram Sulke v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chandiwala Enterprises vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector of Stamps (Enforcement) and Dy. Inspector General of and Ors.

M/S Chandiwala Enterprises vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector of Stamps (Enforcement) and Dy. Inspector General of and Ors.

Bhartiya Vikas a, Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs Raj David ( Deceased) through Legal Heir and Ors.

Vithal Bapu Darekar vs the Revenue Minister and Ors.

Kishore G Shahdadpuri and Anr. vs Happy Life a Coopertiver Society Ltd. and Anr.

Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.