The High Court dismissed an amendment application seeking to condone a 758-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Case, finding the explanation of ill-health insufficient and not supported by medical evidence.
Application seeking to condone delay of 758 days in preferring Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'.t
IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTHDAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
l.A. NO. 1 0F 2021
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 148 OF 2021
Crl.R.C.No. 148 of 2021:
Crl. Revision Case Under Sections397 & 401 ofCrl.P.C. ,1973 aggrieved by the order dated 19-10-2018in M.G.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First ClassMagistrateat Vikarabad
Between:
lvlogishetla Bandeppa Goud, S/o. LateYeerappa,Aged 49 Years, Occ. Pvt Em-ployee, Rl/o. H.no.1-3/1 ,Ivlanthangod Villgge,__Basheerabad Mandal,Ranga ReddyDistrict. ...PETITIONER/ Respondent in both
AND
IAN O:1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 5 of LimitationAct praying that in the circumstances siated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition,the High Courtmay be pleased to condone the delay of (758) days for filing of thecriminalRevision CASE, otherwise the Petitioner willbe put to irreparableloss and it cannot be compensated in any manner in theinterest of justice.
IA NO;2 0F 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C.praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in M.C.No.S of2015' dated 19.10.2018'
passed by the learned Hon'ble Judicial First Classfirlagistrate, atVikarabad pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.
IA NO: 3 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled insupport of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to direct the Respondent No.'1lRevision Petitioner theRevision Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance @Rs 40001 per month from this month and continue the same and(ii) clear allthe arrears pendingie Rs.3,05,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Five Thousand only) to theRespondentNo.2 as explainedin para-llof the counter affidavit during thependencyof the abovesaid CRLRCwith immediate effect.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIK. BUCHI BABU
Counsel forthe Respondent NO.1 :THEPUBLICPROSECUTOR
Counsel forthe Respondent No.2:M/S.K. LAXMI MANOHAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
I.A.No.1 of 2O2L
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.14a of 2O2l
COMMON ORDER:
Challenge in the CriminalRevision Case is the order that is rendered by the Court of JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, 1n M.C.No.S of 2015, dated 19.10.2018.
2
Dr. CSLJ Crl.RC.No.l48 ot202l
due to ill-health, he could not {ile the revision case in time and, therefore, said delay has to be condoned.
J
Dr. CSL.J Crl R.C.No.l46 of 202 I
7 . Keeping the merits of thecase aside, the delay occurredin filing the Criminal RevisionCase is inordinate and no convincing reason or explanation is assignedby the petitioner as to why such an inordinate delay of 758dayshas occasioned in preferringthe Criminal Revision Case. Further-more,no Medical Reportis filed to show that during therelevant period of time, the petitionerwas suffering from ill-health.Thoughthe petitionercontended that he was suffering fromjaundice andwas taking A1'urvedictreatment, nothing would havepreventedthe petitioner to contact his counsel over phone andsigrr the relevant documents, including vakalat for filing the RevisionCase within time or within a reasonable period oftime. Further-more,the illness showni'e' jaundice is not such a deadly disease that wouldprevent a person
from pursuing thedaily pursuits orattending his ldeil'r
Dr CSL.J Crl.R C No.t4E of202l
4
necessities' Also, when the delay occurred is inordinate, there is every necessitlr on the part of a person, who seeks condonation of such an inordinate delay, to explain in clear terms the reasons as to why such an inordinate delay has occurred. Time and again, in catena of decisions, this Court as well as the Hon,ble Apex Court stated that where the delay occurred is inordinate, the Courts should not condone the same in a routine manner. Inconvenience of the other party should also be looked into while condoning such an inordinate delay. In the case on hand, the delay is more than two years and the explanation offered for such an inordinate delay is not convincing. The reasons shown are neither cogent nor reliable. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present application filed seekjng to condone the delay of 758 days in preferring the Crimina_l Revision Case is unsustainable and the same deserves to be dismissed
B. Resultantly, I.A.No. I of 2O2L filed seeking the Court to condone the delal' of 758 days in preferring the criminal Re'ision Case is dismissed.
5
Dr. CSL,J Crl R.C No.l18 of202I
II
stand closed.
SD/-K.SRINIVASARAO JOINTREGISTRAR
//TRUECOPY// SECTI N OFFICER
Il ,n" JudicialMagistrate of First Class'^Vikarabad' Ranga ReddyD^istrict' i. iffi Cc;i;i,bli; P;;;;i;;: High b"urt at Hvderabadror the State
of Telanqana(OUT) a 5""E6'i3sirr.'(. eubHt BABU,Advocate to-P-VgJ. ;. il; ;6i6 s-nikr-u*rni Manonai'Advocate(oPUC)
4\x'
HIGH COURT
DATED:0 410812022
ORDER
S'l'A fc Q1
(
'rY
24 tl'ilr] 2m i/s,
i'
,(k::;;?
CRLRC.No.148 ot 2021
DISMISSING THE lANo. tl2021
AND REJECTEDTHE CITLRC
\K"
Illogishetla Bandeppa Goud
The State of Telangana
Smt. Parwathapally @ Mogishetla VijayLakshmi
Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
