JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The learned trial Magistrate, under, the impugned orders, had accepted the proposals made by the Investigating Officer concerned, in his report furnished before him under the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., proposal where of, appertained to closure of investigations with respect to the FIR concerned. 2. Since, the petitioner, through, her mother-cum-natural guardian, has belatedly concerted, to beget reversal of the impugned order, hence, she has cast the instant application, under, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, whereby, she endeavours to seek condonation, of a delay of 198 days, as has occurred, in filing the criminal revision petition before this Court. 3. The application was contested by the respondents, by filing detailed replies thereto. The Investigating Officer in his apposite closure report instituted before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, had therein made ad nauseam, allusions to the factum of (a) the deceased complainant admitting, his handing over papers bearing his signatures to one Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, (b) his admitting of his opening a joint account inter se him and one Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, (c) thereupon, he recorded conclusions, of purported withdrawals of sums of money, from, the authorised joint accounts by one Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, the authorised co-operator thereof, hence, not attracting any criminal liabilities vis-a-vis him, (d) any misuser of signature papers of deceased complainant, by Gulbir Singh Chaudhary, not being amenable to cogent proof, given the deceased complainant, not being alive, at the stage contemporaneous, to the Investigating Officer concerned, instituting a report, under, Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Magistrate concerned, with proposals therein, for closure of investigations. 4. Even if, reasons) in affirmation thereto meted by the learned Magistrate, are, may be prima facie infirm, yet the learned Magistrate concerned, (i) had, also alluded to an application moved before him by the petitioner, through, her natural guardian one Smt. Sangeeta Devi, in the latter's purportedly safeguardings, of, the interest, of, her minor daughter, one Jayotsana, (ii) whose interests, now at, also she is pursuing being her mother-cum-natural guardian, (iii) AND imperatively had rejected all the purported apposite objections reared thereat by Mrs. Sangeeta Devi. Consequently, even if, one Sangeeta Devi was aggrieved, there from, she was enjoined, to, with utmost promptitude, motion this Court, for concerting reversal of the impugned order. However, she omitted to do so. Sangeeta Devi. Consequently, even if, one Sangeeta Devi was aggrieved, there from, she was enjoined, to, with utmost promptitude, motion this Court, for concerting reversal of the impugned order. However, she omitted to do so. Moreover, in the application at hand, she has purveyed an untenable reason, (iv) of hers, forming an opinion that the only appropriate remedy available to her, for contesting, the impugned order, was through, the mechanism of hers instituting a civil suit. The aforesaid purported reason, which debarred or precluded, the applicant to promptly move this Court, for assailing the impugned orders, is per se ridden with an aura of falsity nor hence it is acceptable. Contrarily, when she has also made a disclosure in the application at hand, of her mother, through whom, she has moved the instant revision petition also being careful and diligent in watching her interests, (v) whereas, rather a contrary thereto averments, of her mother being not diligent or watchful in protecting her interest in litigation, rather constituted an appropriate averment, for, her application being allowed, (vi) thereupon, with her mother-cum-natural guardian, inordinately, procrastinating in agitating the impugned orders, constrains this Court, to, conclude that delay as has occurred, in the institution of the criminal revision petition, before this Court, for assailing the impugned order, has not been satisfactorily explained, rather it is both intentional and deliberate. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith.