Disposed¶13

Pooja Sharma v. Vipul Lakhanpal and another

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024CRMPM/782/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; criminal appeal; Section 195 Cr.P.C.; bonafide belief that State would appeal against dismissal; delay condoned; application disposed of; judgment reserved in Cr. Revision filing No. 10863 of 2023; psychiatric disorder asserted in reply; Judge Rakesh Kainthla; dated 11.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal; the application stands disposed of. Judgment on the connected Cr. Revision (filing No. 10863 of 2023) reserved. ¶13

Pooja Sharma Vs Vipul Lakhanpal and another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Pooja Sharma vs. Vipul Lakhanpal & Anr. Cr.MP(M) No. 782 of 2024

¶2

11.09.2024 Present:

¶3

Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate for guardian of respondent No.1.

¶5

Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2.

¶6

Cr.MP(M) No. 782 of 2024

¶7

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal has been filed. It has been asserted that applicant had filed an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. in the appeal which was dismissed alongwith the main appeal. The applicant was under the impression that the State would prefer the appeal against the dismissal of the appeal but no appeal was filed. An enquiry was made and the applicant after came to know that no appeal was preferred in this case, a counsel was engaged who drafted the appeal and filed the same before this Court. Hence, the application.

¶8

Application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. However, the filing of the application and dismissal of the appeal were not disputed. It was also undisputed that the State had not preferred any

¶9

appeal. It was asserted that the respondent was suffering from Psychiatric disorder and the State had rightly preferred not to file an appeal. Hence, it was prayed that this application be dismissed.

¶10

A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

It is undisputed that the appeal was not preferred by the State. The applicant had filed an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C and he would be unaware of the disposal of appeal. Therefore, the explanation provided that the appellant remained under the bonafide belief that the State would prefer the appeal and assail the judgment dismissing the appeal appears to be plausible. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned.

¶13