Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 68 (MP)

TEJINDER SINGH PAHWA v. STATE OF M. P.

2018-01-16

S.K.PALO

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. H. S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. C. K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1/State. Mr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 9-10-2015 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 371/2015 in the interest of justice. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, on the complaint of the petitioner at Police Station, Madan Mahal Crime No. 157/2012 has been lodged against the respondents No. 2 to 4 for offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent thereto, the Police Station, Madan Mahal filed ‘Khatma’ report (closure report). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after recording of the statements of the petitioner and the Officer-in-Charge, allowed the closure report on 22-9-2014. 3. The petitioner then preferred revision against the said order dated 22-9-2014 before 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The learned Revision Court vide order dated 9-10-2015, held that the revision is barred by limitation and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking direction that the order dated 9-10-2015 be set aside and the revisional Court be directed to consider the revision on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner had no knowledge about the order impugned as he is the complainant and after he came to know about the order dated 22-9-2014, he tried to collect the documents and after having collected the documents, he preferred the revision. The revision is delayed for sometime. Therefore, dismissal of the petition is bad in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh eyes of law. He placed reliance on the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the delay should be considered and the Court should adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach. 5. He placed reliance on the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the delay should be considered and the Court should adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach. 5. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 , in which, it has been held that the Courts bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown. The term “sufficient cause” is elastic enough to enable the Court to apply the law in a manner which subserves ends of justice. No hard and fast rule laid down. Liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration. In paragraph 14 it has been held as under :— “14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.” 6. Per contra, the petition is opposed by the respondent No. 1/State. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the petitioner has been contesting several cases against the respondent. He is not a person of village background. He is not illiterate. The delay of 78 days has not been explained by the petitioner and hence, the revisional Court has passed the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference. 8. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Santosh vs. Chunna, 2015(3) M.P.L.J. 129 , in which, period of 3 years for filing the civil suit was held to be barred by limitation. The same does not call for any interference. 8. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Santosh vs. Chunna, 2015(3) M.P.L.J. 129 , in which, period of 3 years for filing the civil suit was held to be barred by limitation. He also placed reliance in the case of State of M.P. vs. Shrimant Tukojirao Panwar, 2015(3) M.P.L.J. 705 , in which, the delay of 1687 days, (almost 4 years), in preferring the appeal by the State has been High Court of Madhya Pradesh held to be not liable to be condoned. In both the cases the delay is more and no plausible explanation has been provided. These citations do not have application in the circumstances of the present case, for in the present case delay is only 78 days. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Hari Singh s/o Bhamarlal vs. Kailash s/o Shrikishan Kirar and another, 2015 (1) M.P.L.J. 173 , in which, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that delay of 460 days in filing the appeal without offering any plausible explanation on record is not liable to be condoned. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. and others, AIR 2011 SC 1199 , in which, the delay caused by inefficiency and ineptitude of government pleaders was not condoned as the liberal approach, justice oriented approach and the substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison substantial law of limitation as there is not justification for delay. In this case also the suit was decreed by judgment dated 24-9-1982, whereas the appeal was filed before the High Court after three years i.e. in the year 1985. Therefore, the benefit of justice oriented approach or liberal approach has not been taken, even the High Court allowed the condonation of delay, the Apex Court refused to exercise the jurisdiction and set aside the order of the High Court. 11. In the present case, it would be appropriate to note that, the petitioner is the complainant, who filed the written complaint before the Police Station, Madan Mahal. 11. In the present case, it would be appropriate to note that, the petitioner is the complainant, who filed the written complaint before the Police Station, Madan Mahal. The petitioner recorded his statement and his counsel was also present on the date the final order was passed, even though the delay is not five and half months, but the period of revision is 90 days. Therefore, the delay is of only 78 days. In the present case the petitioner has not explained the sufficient cause for delay of 78 days, whereas the counsel was present on 22-9-2014, when the closure order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 12. In Brij Inder Singh vs. Kaushiram, AIR 1987 SC 1726 , it was observed that true guide for a Court to exercise the direction under section 5 of the Limitation Act is whether the appellant acted High Court of Madhya Pradesh with reasonable diligence on prosecuting the appeal. The petitioner was actively participating in the proceeding, though he failed to file the revision in time. The delay cannot be condoned on the allegation that the petitioner had no intention to cause delay. 13. In such circumstances, the petition is dismissed as the delay has not has been explained.