CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1182 of 2024 Naresh State of U.P v. Revisionist(s)

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present revision has been field against the order dated 29.01.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 8318 of 2009 (State vs. Nanhelal and others), under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bhuta, District-Bareilly, as well as order dated 16.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2013 (Nanheylal and others vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 552 of 2009, under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C.

As per prosecution case the revisionist and the complainant are real uncle and nephew. On 11.03.2009 at about 1:00 O'clock, when the informant was celeberating Holi, the accused persons reached there and started hurling abuses on him, over the ancestral land and when the complainant objected, then the accused persons assaulted him with lathi- danda. The accused persons have also beaten the wife of the complainant when she tried to save her husband. Upon hearing the commotion some persons rushed to the place of occurrence and have seen the incident.

The instant revision has been filed with the delay of 1602 days.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that during trial and pendency of the criminal appeal, the revisionist was on bail and never misused the liberty thereof, but at the time of passing the impugned order dated 16.12.2017, the revisionist was not present before the trial Court 2 CRLRD No. 1182 of 2024 and has gone to Mumbai to earn his livelihood, that is why he could not appear before the trial court on few dates, as a result thereof Non-bailable warrant has been issued against the revisionist. He next submitted that the revisionist is a poor person and he is having financial constraints. He next submitted that the delay in filing the revision was neither deliberate nor willful, but due to financial hardship and seeking appropriate legal advice at appropriate time and prayed, that the delay in filing the present revision be condoned.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the delay in filing the revision was deliberate and willful. In support of his contention, A.G.A. has relied upon paragraph nos. 260, 261, 262 and 264 of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019, which reads as under:- "262 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State- authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law. 263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law. "

Having regard to the fact that there is inordinate delay of 1602 days in filing the revision. The reasons shown in the application are not sufficient. The said delay is inordinate and cannot be condoned as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra). 3 CRLRD No. 1182 of 2024

The application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed, hence no further order is required to be passed.

Subject to the observations made above, this revision is consigned to records. September 24, 2025 Faridul (Harvir Singh,J.)