Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1107 (GUJ)

Rambhai Bhikhabhai Kamani v. State of Gujarat

2017-06-30

M.R.SHAH

body2017
ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by applicant herein-one of the original petitioner requesting to condone the huge delay of 2124 days caused in filing the application for recalling the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by this Court and for restoration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11231/2008. 2. Heard Shri Nishit Soni, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein. 3. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such main Criminal Miscellaneous Application is of the year 2002 requesting to quash the First Information Report recorded as Criminal Inquiry Case No. 101/2000 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli. It is required to be noted that as such the said application came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2007 That thereafter the petitioner and other original petitioners preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11231/2008 for appropriate order of restoration of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4277/2002. Even the said restoration application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4277/2002 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2010 That thereafter, after a period of approximately 7 years, one of the original petitioner has preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9782/2017 requesting to restore the restoration application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11231/2008. There is a delay of 2414 days in preferring the restoration application to restore the restoration application. Under the circumstances, as such the present one can be said to be second restoration application and the main application has been dismissed for non-prosecution as far as back in the year 2007. As observed hereinabove, even the main Criminal Miscellaneous Application, which is of the year 2002, was preferred to quash FIR being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 101/2000. That thereafter approximately 27 years have passed. There is agross negligence on the part of the applicant herein-one of the original petitioner in preferring the restoration application to restore the main application as well as to restore the restoration application, which was submitted to restore the main Criminal Miscellaneous Application. It is required to be noted that out of 13 original petitioners only one co-petitioner has preferred the present application and even rest of them have not even preferred restoration applications. It is required to be noted that out of 13 original petitioners only one co-petitioner has preferred the present application and even rest of them have not even preferred restoration applications. Considering the averments in the application, it cannot be said that the huge delay of 2414 days has been explained. There is a gross delay and negligence and lethargy on the part of the applicant. Considering overall aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court proposes not to exercise the discretion in favour of such negligent applicant. As observed hereinabove, the FIR/Criminal Inquiry Case is of the year 2000. Nothing has been pointed out about at what stage the proceedings are now. In any case as the huge delay has not been explained properly and sufficiently, present application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Under the circumstances, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9783/2017 is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9782/2017 also stands dismissed on the ground of limitation.