Jogendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12342 of 2023 Applicant :- Jogendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yuga Raj Singh,Vandana Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anirudh Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶2By means of the present application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 04.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 576/2022 CIS No. 576/2022 (Jogendra Versus Bahuran and Others), whereby Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2 District Sitapur, rejected the application preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 (in short 'Act of 1963'), which was preferred with the prayer to condone the delay in challenging the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 3793/2019 whereby trial court summoned the accused/opposite parties under Section 147/323/504/506 IPC fixing 01.05.2020 as date of appearance.

¶3The impugned order dated 04.10.2023 reads as under:- "i=koyh is"k gqbZA iqdkj ij izkFkhZ mifLFkrA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks izkFkZuk&i= 3d vUrxZr /kkjk&5 ifjlhek vof/k vf/kfu;e ij lquk x;k rFkk iz=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ tksxsUnz dh vksj ls izkFkZuk&i= 3d vUrxZr /kkjk&5 ifjlhek vof/k vf/kfu;e] U;k;ky; izFke vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] lhrkiqj ds }kjk ikfjr rych vkns"k fnukafdr 14-02-2020 ds fo:) iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk izLrqr djus esa gq, foyEc dks {kek djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA i=koyh ds ifj"khyu ls Li'V gS fd fo}ku voj U;k;ky; ds }kjk vius vkns"k fnukafdr 14-02-2020 ds ek/;e ls ifjoknh tksxsUnz ds ifjokn ij vfHk;qDrx.k cgksju vkfn ds fo:) rych vkns"k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mDr rych vkns"k ls vlarq'V gksdj izkFkhZ tksfxUnz }kjk iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk fnukad 03-09-2022 dks bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr dh x;h gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks xaHkhj /kkjkvksa esa fopkj.k gsrq vkgwr fd;k tk,A izkFkhZ }kjk foyEc {kek gsrq ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS fd fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 14-02-2020 dks dksjkuk dky esa rych vkns"k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% mls mDr vkns"k dh tkudkjh ugha gks ik;h FkhA i=koyh ds ifj"khyu ls ;g Hkh Li'V gS fd rych vkns"k fnukad 14-02-2020 dks ikfjr gqvk Fkk] ijUrq ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk fnukad 03-09-2022 dks vFkkZr rych vkns"k ikfjr gksus ds yxHkx nks o'kZ] lkr ekg ckn ;ksftr dh xbZ gS] tcfd dkQh le; iwoZ gh dksjksuk dk izHkko lekIr gks pqdk FkkA ewy ifjokn la[;k&3793@2019] ftlesa fd vk{ksfir rych vkns"k fnukafdr 14-02-2020 ikfjr gqvk gS] og ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquus ds i"pkr~ ikfjr vkns"k gS] bl izkFkZuk&i= dk izkFkhZ tksxsUnz] ifjokn la[;k&3793@2019 esa ifjoknh Fkk vkSj mDr ifjokn esa ikfjr vkns"k fnukafdr 14-02-2020 ifjoknh tksxsUnz ds ifjokn&i= ij mlds gh i{k esa ikfjr vkns"k Fkk] vr% vkns"k fnukafdr 14-02-2020] tks fd izkFkhZ tksxsUnz ds i{k esa ikfjr vkns"k gS] bldh tkudkjh izkFkhZ dks yxHkx nks o'kZ] lkr ekg rd ugha gks ldh] ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% brus yEcs yxHkx nks o'kZ] lkr ekg ds foyEc dk leqfpr Li'Vhdj.k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= 3d vUrxZr /kkjk&5 ifjlhek vof/k vf/kfu;e Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vkns k" izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= 3d vUrxZr /kkjk&5 ifjlhek vof/k vf/kfu;e fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh ckn vko";d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky laxzg"kkyk gksA"

¶4At this stage, this Court feels it appropriate to refer paragraph nos. 4 to 6 of the application preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of the Act of 1963, which are as under:- "/kkjk 4& ;g fd U;k;ky; Jheku izFke vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV egksn; lhrkiqj ds }kjk dksjksuk dky dh vof/k ds nkSjku ryrh vkns"k fnukad 14-02-2020 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ml nkSjku U;k;ky; es O;fDrxr mifLFkr izfrcfU/kr gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks mDr vkns"k ds fo'k; esa tkudkjh izkIr ugh gks ldh ftl dkj.k fof/k O;oLFkk esa fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds vUnj mDr vkns"k ds fo:) ifjfLFkfrol fuxjkuh izLrqr ugh dj ldkA /kkjk 5& ;g fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk fuxjkuh izLrqr djus esa gqvk foyEc ifjfLFkfr o tkudkjh ds vHkko ds dkj.k gqvk gS tks {kek fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA /kkjk 6& ;g fd izkFkhZ ds foyEc dks {kek dj fuxjkuh izLrqr djus dk volj iznku fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr es vko";d gSA"

¶5A perusal of the order impugned dated 04.10.2023 indicates that the concerned court after observing that the applicant has failed to explain the delay of 2 years and 7 months in preferring the revision has rejected the application for condonation of delay.

¶6Upon due consideration of the observation made by the concerned court and the submission of learned Counsel for the parties particularly the submission of learned Counsel for the applicant that on account of Corona Pandemic the order dated

14.02.2020 could not be challenged within reasonable time as also the explanation given in paragraph nos. 4 to 6 as also the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 (Cognizance for extension of time), this Court is of the view that applicant has not given the proper explanation to condone the delay.

¶7Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 18.12.2023 Jyoti/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench