Dismissed

Pradeep Garg and Another v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand HC27 Apr 2015C482/206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application moving under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court dismissed the applicant's challenge to the lower court's decision to condone delay in filing a criminal revision. The Bench observed that no illegality was committed in condoning the delay and dismissed the application. Additionally, parties were directed to maintain status quo on a public pathway until a specifie

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Parties directed to maintain status quo until 22.05.2015.

Pradeep Garg and Another Vs State Of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 206 of 2015

¶3

Pradeep Garg and another ……. Applicants versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶5

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

¶6

The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to set aside the order dated 07.02.2015, passed by V Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in criminal revision no. 325 of 2013, captioned as Alok Ballabh vs State of Uttarakhand and others.

¶7

On the motion of Station Officer of police station, Raipur, District Dehradun, proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated in respect of a public pathway. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Dehradun issued notice under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on 20.09.2012. The notice was stated to be served upon respondent no. 2. Said respondent did not appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar. Ex parte proceedings were passed against respondent no. 2 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, vide order dated 07.02.2013. Aggrieved against the same, respondent no. 2 preferred a criminal revision, in which the delay in filing the

¶8

¶9

criminal revision was condoned, vide order dated 07.02.2015. Complainant, therefore, assailed the same by means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record, including the impugned order, whereby delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.

¶11

The short question which arises for consideration of this Court is – whether delay in filing the criminal revision was rightly condoned by the court below or not?

¶12

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157 , has observed as under:

¶13

“14. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶14

The expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a

¶15

¶16

meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years this Court has advocated that a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay.”

¶17

This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the court below while condoning the delay in filing the criminal revision. Impugned order, therefore, warrants no interference. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

It is the statement of learned counsel for the parties that the public pathway in respect of which proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated, is open as on date, as per the interim order dated 13.02.2015, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶19

Parties are, therefore, directed to maintain status quo on the same till 22.05.2015, on which date both the parties shall appear before the lower revisional court, i.e., V Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

¶20

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

¶21

Dt. April 27, 2015. Negi

Pradeep Garg and Another v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Garg and Another v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh @ Jassa Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Nitin Chauhan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Jagdish Dutt Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Vaibhav Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Arvind Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Jai Prakash and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others