Dileshar v. Smt Vijay Tiwari & Others), Under Section

2. Heard Shri Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most humble prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the summoning order dated 29.07.2024 arising out in Complaint Case No.1892 of 2023 (Dileshar Versus Smt Vijay Tiwari & Others), Under Section 147, 323 I.P.C. Relating to Police Station- Bandhua Kalan, District - Sultanpur, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Sulntapur, as well as impugned revisional order dated-order dated-22.07.2025, passed by Sessions Judge, District - Sultanpur in criminal revision no.4933/2025 by which the revision is dismissed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on the point of limitation in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that the further proceeding in pursuance to the summoning order dated-29.07.2024 arising out in Complaint Case No.1892 of 2023 (Dileshar Versus Vijay Tiwari & Others), Under Section - 147, 323 I.P.C. Relating to Police Station - Bandhua Kalan, District - Sultanpur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, District - Sultanpur, as well as impugned revisional order dated- order dated-22.07.2025, passed by Sessions Judge, District-Sultanpur in criminal revision no.4933/2025 by which the revision is dismissed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on the point of limitation, may be stayed during 2 A482 No. 6820 of 2025 the pendency of this application Under Section-482 Cr.P.C. Now 528 B.N.S.S. before this Hon'ble Court."

4. Vide the impugned order dated 29.07.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.1892 of 2023 (Dileshwar Vs. Vijay Tiwari and others), Police Station - Bandhuva Kala, District - Sultanpur the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Sultanpur (in short "Magistrate") summoned the accused-applicants Mohit, Rajesh, Vijay Tiwari, Ashish and Ram Bahadur to face the trial under Sections 147, 323 I.P.C.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2025, the learned Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short "Revisional Court") rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "Limitation Act"). The revisionists gave explanation in the application seeking condonation of delay and for the ready reference, the same is extracted herein under:- "यह िक िवप्षी सं० 2 के ्षारा िव्षान अवर न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 29.07.2024 अं० धारा-147, 323 भा०द०सं० से ्षुब्ध होकर िदनांक 01.08.2024ई0 ्शीमान् जी के सम्ष िनगरानी ्ऺस्तुत की गयी थी और उ्व िनगरानी में नोिटस जारी होने के उपरांत िनगरानीकतार्गण को किथत घटना के बारे में जानकारी होने के उपरांत उ्व िनगरानी में िनगरानीकतार्गण उपिस्थत होकर अपना जवाब ्ऺस्तुत िकये उ्व िनगरानी िवप्षी सं० 2 के ्षारा जो दायर की गयी थी उ्व िनगरानी अपर िजला एवं स्ऴ न्यायाधीश महोदय, क्ष सं० 3 सुलतानपुर के ्षारा किथत घटना गलत पाये जाने के कारण िदनांक 02.07.2025 ई० को िनरस्त कर दी गयी है, उसके बाद जानकारी होने के उपरांत िनगरानीकतार्गण के ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत िनगरानी माननीय न्यायालय में दािखल की जा रही है जो भी िवलम्ब हुआ यह न जानकारी के कारण हुआ है।"

6. Taking note of the aforesaid, the revisional court for the purposes of rejecting the application of the applicants preferred in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has observed as under :- "It is pertinent to note that the summoning order being challenged herein was passed on 29.07.2024. The instant revision has been filed on

22.07.2025, i.e., after nearly one year from the date of order. A bare reading of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that the revisionists have not provided any clear, cogent or specific explanation as to when and how they acquired knowledge of the summoning order, nor have they annexed any supporting documents in that regard. It is a settled legal principle that ignorance of law is not an excuse, each & every day's delay must be satisfactorily explained. In the present case, no satisfactory cause has been shown, nor any reliable material produced to justify condonation of such inordinate delay. In view of the aforesaid facts and the absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 3 A482 No. 6820 of 2025 revision is hopelessly time-barred and the application under Section 5 Limitation Act is devoid of merit. Thus, liable to be dismissed in limne."

7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application has been filed for the main relief sought, quoted above.

8. While impeaching the order dated 29.07.2024 it is stated that the Magistrate has erred in fact as well as law in not considering the police report dated 08.04.2023, according to which the opposite party No.2 sustained injury in an accident and impeaching the order of the revisional court dated 22.07.2025 it is stated that the Revisional Court failed to consider the basic principles related to condoning the delay.

9. Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the present application.

10. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

11. In so far as the order of Revisional Court dated 22.07.2025 is concerned, this Court finds that in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, the Revisional Court has not committed any error. It is for the reason that the revisionists-applicants before the Revisional Court have not indicated specific date of knowledge of the order of the Magistrate dated 29.07.2024 along with its proof, which ought to have been given as according to the explanation given in paragraph 5 of the application, the revisionists-applicants stated that they came to know about the order dated 29.07.2024 after receiving the summons of the Revisional Court filed by the opposite party No.2 challenging the order dated 29.07.2024 whereby the Magistrate summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 147, 323 I.P.C. and the applicants have failed to place the copy of the summon on record, which ought to be to establish the facts based upon the same pleaded in the application for condonation of delay.

12. With regard to the order dated 22.07.2024, which has been impeached on the basis of police report dated 28.01.2023, this court finds that the applicants at this stage has no case. It is for the reason that the injured in his statement given before the Magistrate in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. specifically indicated the names of the present applicants. The issue related to report dated 08.04.2023, has to be adjudicated by the Magistrate based upon the evidence adduced by the parties.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the present application is dismissed, leaving it open to the applicants to avail the remedy as available under the law. August 25, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most humble prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the summoning order dated 29.07.2024 arising out in Complaint Case No.1892 of 2023 (Dileshar Versus Smt Vijay Tiwari & Others), Under Section 147, 323 I.P.C. Relating to Police Station- Bandhua Kalan, District - Sultanpur, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Sulntapur, as well as impugned revisional order dated-order dated-22.07.2025, passed by Sessions Judge, District - Sultanpur in criminal revision no.4933/2025 by which the revision is dismissed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on the point of limitation in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that the further proceeding in pursuance to the summoning order dated-29.07.2024 arising out in Complaint Case No.1892 of 2023 (Dileshar Versus Vijay Tiwari & Others), Under Section - 147, 323 I.P.C. Relating to Police Station - Bandhua Kalan, District - Sultanpur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, District - Sultanpur, as well as impugned revisional order dated- order dated-22.07.2025, passed by Sessions Judge, District-Sultanpur in criminal revision no.4933/2025 by which the revision is dismissed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur on the point of limitation, may be stayed during 2 A482 No. 6820 of 2025 the pendency of this application Under Section-482 Cr.P.C. Now 528 B.N.S.S. before this Hon'ble Court."

4. Vide the impugned order dated 29.07.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.1892 of 2023 (Dileshwar Vs. Vijay Tiwari and others), Police Station - Bandhuva Kala, District - Sultanpur the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Sultanpur (in short "Magistrate") summoned the accused-applicants Mohit, Rajesh, Vijay Tiwari, Ashish and Ram Bahadur to face the trial under Sections 147, 323 I.P.C.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2025, the learned Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short "Revisional Court") rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "Limitation Act"). The revisionists gave explanation in the application seeking condonation of delay and for the ready reference, the same is extracted herein under:- "यह िक िवप्षी सं० 2 के ्षारा िव्षान अवर न्यायालय ्षारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 29.07.2024 अं० धारा-147, 323 भा०द०सं० से ्षुब्ध होकर िदनांक 01.08.2024ई0 ्शीमान् जी के सम्ष िनगरानी ्ऺस्तुत की गयी थी और उ्व िनगरानी में नोिटस जारी होने के उपरांत िनगरानीकतार्गण को किथत घटना के बारे में जानकारी होने के उपरांत उ्व िनगरानी में िनगरानीकतार्गण उपिस्थत होकर अपना जवाब ्ऺस्तुत िकये उ्व िनगरानी िवप्षी सं० 2 के ्षारा जो दायर की गयी थी उ्व िनगरानी अपर िजला एवं स्ऴ न्यायाधीश महोदय, क्ष सं० 3 सुलतानपुर के ्षारा किथत घटना गलत पाये जाने के कारण िदनांक 02.07.2025 ई० को िनरस्त कर दी गयी है, उसके बाद जानकारी होने के उपरांत िनगरानीकतार्गण के ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत िनगरानी माननीय न्यायालय में दािखल की जा रही है जो भी िवलम्ब हुआ यह न जानकारी के कारण हुआ है।"

6. Taking note of the aforesaid, the revisional court for the purposes of rejecting the application of the applicants preferred in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has observed as under :- "It is pertinent to note that the summoning order being challenged herein was passed on 29.07.2024. The instant revision has been filed on

22.07.2025, i.e., after nearly one year from the date of order. A bare reading of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that the revisionists have not provided any clear, cogent or specific explanation as to when and how they acquired knowledge of the summoning order, nor have they annexed any supporting documents in that regard. It is a settled legal principle that ignorance of law is not an excuse, each & every day's delay must be satisfactorily explained. In the present case, no satisfactory cause has been shown, nor any reliable material produced to justify condonation of such inordinate delay. In view of the aforesaid facts and the absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 3 A482 No. 6820 of 2025 revision is hopelessly time-barred and the application under Section 5 Limitation Act is devoid of merit. Thus, liable to be dismissed in limne."

7. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application has been filed for the main relief sought, quoted above.

8. While impeaching the order dated 29.07.2024 it is stated that the Magistrate has erred in fact as well as law in not considering the police report dated 08.04.2023, according to which the opposite party No.2 sustained injury in an accident and impeaching the order of the revisional court dated 22.07.2025 it is stated that the Revisional Court failed to consider the basic principles related to condoning the delay.

9. Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the present application.

10. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

11. In so far as the order of Revisional Court dated 22.07.2025 is concerned, this Court finds that in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, the Revisional Court has not committed any error. It is for the reason that the revisionists-applicants before the Revisional Court have not indicated specific date of knowledge of the order of the Magistrate dated 29.07.2024 along with its proof, which ought to have been given as according to the explanation given in paragraph 5 of the application, the revisionists-applicants stated that they came to know about the order dated 29.07.2024 after receiving the summons of the Revisional Court filed by the opposite party No.2 challenging the order dated 29.07.2024 whereby the Magistrate summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 147, 323 I.P.C. and the applicants have failed to place the copy of the summon on record, which ought to be to establish the facts based upon the same pleaded in the application for condonation of delay.

12. With regard to the order dated 22.07.2024, which has been impeached on the basis of police report dated 28.01.2023, this court finds that the applicants at this stage has no case. It is for the reason that the injured in his statement given before the Magistrate in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. specifically indicated the names of the present applicants. The issue related to report dated 08.04.2023, has to be adjudicated by the Magistrate based upon the evidence adduced by the parties.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the present application is dismissed, leaving it open to the applicants to avail the remedy as available under the law. August 25, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench