Suman Arya v. State of Uttarakhand Others

3. The marriage between the applicant, Smt. Suman Arya, and respondent no. 2, Shri Ravi Kumar, was solemnized on 08.12.2010 as per Hindu rites Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 1 Ashish Naithani J. and rituals. Post-marriage, the applicant alleges that she was subjected to severe mental and physical cruelty, harassment, and domestic violence by respondent no. 2 and his mother, respondent no. 3, on account of dowry.

4. It is the case of the applicant that due to such cruelty; she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and that her belongings including stridhan, jewellery, clothes, and books were illegally withheld by the private respondents.

5. On 08.09.2015, the applicant recorded her statement and prayed for return of her stridhan and other personal belongings. On the same date, the Protection Officer submitted a report assessing the applicant’s maintenance at Rs. 25,000/- per month under Section 20 of the Act.

6. Vide order dated 02.12.2015, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing the application.

7. Respondent no. 2 challenged the said interim order in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2016, which was dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, on 20.05.2016.

8. Despite the interim order, respondent no. 2 allegedly failed to pay the full amount due, having paid only Rs. 30,000/- out of a total Rs. 85,000/- by

14.09.2016.

9. Thereafter, the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, on 14.09.2016, against which the applicant initially filed Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2016. However, the said appeal was dismissed as “not pressed” on 25.07.2017 on the ground that the State had not been impleaded as a party.

10. Subsequently, the applicant filed a fresh appeal under Section 29 of the Act, being Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2017, with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 2 months and 7 days. The delay condonation application was dismissed by Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 2 Ashish Naithani J. the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide order dated 23.08.2017, and consequently, the appeal was rejected as time- barred.

11. The applicant has approached this Hon’ble Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside aforementioned impugned orders, stating that her case was never adjudicated on merits and that she has been gravely prejudiced on account of procedural technicalities and errors not attributable to her fault. The present application has been filed in the year 2021, seeking quashing of both the orders dated 14.09.2016 and 23.08.2017.

12. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.R.S Gill and Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and learned AGA for the State-respondent no. 1, and perused the records.

13. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Session Judge, Nainital is arbitrary and illegal as it rejected the delay condonation application in a cursory and mechanical manner without appreciating the genuine and sufficient reasons for the delay.

14. It is submitted that the delay of merely 2 months and 7 days should have been condoned in the interest of justice, particularly when the first appeal was dismissed as "not pressed" due to a technical defect of non- impleadment of the State as a party.

15. The learned counsel argues that Section 14 of the Limitation Act was applicable in the present case, and the period during which the earlier appeal was pending should have been excluded while calculating the limitation period.

16. It is further contended that the original order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nainital is perverse, against the material on record, and deserves to be quashed. Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 3 Ashish Naithani J.

17. The applicant submits that she has suffered immensely due to the mistakes and lapses of her previous counsel and should not be made to bear the consequences of the same, as per the settled legal position that a litigant should not suffer due to the mistakes of counsel.

18. It is also argued that there is no limitation prescribed for filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the delay in approaching this Court has been sufficiently explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant's hope for reconciliation with the respondents.

19. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 opposes the application on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it essentially seeks to challenge the orders passed by the courts below on merits, which can only be done by way of revision or appeal, and not by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court.

20. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal before the Sessions Court was inordinate and no day-to-day explanation was provided in the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

21. The respondents deny all allegations of domestic violence, cruelty, or demand for dowry, and contend that the applicant left the matrimonial home on her own will and under the strict instructions of her family members.

22. It is submitted that the applicant has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of almost 4 years from the date of the impugned order dated 23.08.2017, and no sufficient explanation has been provided for this delay.

23. The learned counsel for the respondents argues that both the courts below have passed well-reasoned orders after proper appreciation of the facts and material evidence available on record, and there is no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 4 Ashish Naithani J.

24. The primary issue before this Court is whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to challenge orders passed by the courts below after a delay of almost 4 years, especially when remedies of appeal and revision were available to the applicant.

25. It is well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised when specific provisions of law exist for redressal of grievances. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the principles and parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

26. In the present case, the applicant had the remedy of filing a revision petition against the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Session Judge, Nainital. Instead, she has chosen to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after a delay of almost 4 years.

27. The explanation provided for this delay - change of counsel, hope of reconciliation, and the COVID-19 pandemic - is not satisfactory, especially considering that the pandemic commenced in March 2020, while the impugned order was passed in August 2017. There is no explanation for the delay between August 2017 and March 2020.

28. This Court has carefully examined the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Session Judge, Nainital. The said order reveals that the learned Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay in filing the appeal. This finding does not appear to be perverse or arbitrary.

29. It is true that courts should generally adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay, especially in matters involving matrimonial disputes. However, this liberality cannot be stretched to an extent where delays are condoned without any satisfactory explanation. The applicant failed to Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 5 Ashish Naithani J. provide a day-to-day explanation for the delay, which was a necessary requirement.

30. As regards the argument based on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, it is observed that the applicant did not specifically plead this ground before the learned Additional District and Session Judge. Moreover, Section 14 contemplates exclusion of time spent in prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding in good faith. In the present case, the first appeal was dismissed as "not pressed" due to non-impleadment of a necessary party, which cannot be said to be prosecution of the proceeding with due diligence.

31. This Court has also perused the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. The said order reveals that the learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the applicant had failed to substantiate her allegations of domestic violence. This finding was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as far back in 1962 in case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd A.I.R. 1962 SC 361 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a ‘sufficient cause’ for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party.

33. For the present matter a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50 wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 6 Ashish Naithani J. of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion.

34. This Court finds support in the reasoning advanced by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad 269 as perused in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685observed :- “It is however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient is a condition precedent the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.”

35. In the present case, while the delay per se may not be inordinate, the application seeking condonation is notably vague on day-to-day explanation. The Court cannot overlook that the earlier appeal had been dismissed as not pressed due to an avoidable procedural lapse and that no steps were promptly taken thereafter, except for a generalized claim of change in counsel and future hope of reconciliation.

36. This Court is mindful of the fact that the dispute involves matrimonial relations, which are always delicate and sensitive. Courts generally adopt a compassionate approach in such matters, keeping in view the larger interest of preserving the matrimonial bond. Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 7 Ashish Naithani J.

37. However, this compassionate approach cannot be extended to an extent where established principles of law are completely disregarded. Limitation laws exist to ensure finality in litigation and to prevent courts from being flooded with stale claims.

38. In the present case, the applicant has approached this Court after a delay of almost 4 years, without providing any satisfactory explanation for this delay. This Court cannot ignore this aspect, especially when specific remedies were available to the applicant, which she failed to avail in time.

39. It is also relevant to note that the applicant's allegations of domestic violence were not substantiated before the learned Judicial Magistrate, which is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. This Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot re- appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the trial court. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The applicant has failed to make out a case for interference with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. There is no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the said orders warranting exercise of this Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. Dated:24.04.2025 NR/ Ashish Naithani, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 2021-----Suman Arya vs State of Uttarakhand & others 8 Ashish Naithani J.