Rafiqul Islam v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER

11.01.2024 Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, Page No.# 2/3 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State opposite party No.1.

¶2Order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Lawazima Court indicates that as per track consignment report, available in the case record indicates that notice in respect of opposite party No.2 has been delivered to the addressee on 08.09.2023, and as such, service stands completed in respect of the opposite party No.2. But the opposite party No.2 remains unrepresented today.

¶3Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 368 days in filing the connected criminal revision petition, challenging the ex-parte order, dated 30.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Salmara-Mankachar, in Misc. Case No.29/2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the learned Court below has granted maintenance allowance @ ` 7,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 from the date of filing of the petition. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and without causing service of notice upon the applicant as at the relevant point of time, he was serving at Nyveli of Tamil Nadu as CISF constable the impugned order was passed and therefore, the learned counsel submits that the criminal revision petition could not be filed in time and the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and therefore, it is contended to condone the same.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional P.P. submits that since the opposite party No.2 had failed to turn up in spite of service of notice, he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 368 days in filing the criminal revision petition.

¶5Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have gone through the application and the documents placed on record. It appears that the impugned order dated 30.04.2022 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Salmara-Mankachar ex-parte.

¶6In view of the explanation so forthcoming for the delay of 368 days, this Court is Page No.# 3/3 inclined to accept the same and condone the delay of 368 days in filing the connected criminal revision petition.

¶7Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶8Registry to register and number the connected criminal revision petition and list the same before this Court. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010170702023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/697/2023 RAFIQUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL HOQUE VILL- TUNGRURCHAR, P.O. AND P.S. MOHENDRAGANJ, DIST. SOUTH WEST GARO HILLS, MEGHALAYA, PIN-794106 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MS. NARGIS BEGUM D/O ZAMAN MANDAL VILL AND P.O. HATSINGIMARI P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN