Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Arif vs Aditya Sharma on 2 August, 2022

           IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
                  ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­03
                SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI


Case Registration No. 240/2022
CNR No. DLSE01­005347­2022


        ARIF
        S/o Nanne
        R/o G­45, Gali No. 8,
        Sangam Vihar, Pushpa Bhawan,
        New Delhi.
                                                          .... Petitioner

                                  VERSUS

        ADITYA SHARMA
        S/o Jai Prakash Sharma
        R/o H. No. D1A/344, Sangam Vihar,
        New Delhi.
                                                          .... Respondent

                                  ORDER

02.08.2022

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of application of petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing revision petition u/s 399 Case Registration No. 240/2022 Arif Vs. Aditya Sharma Page no....1 of 6 Cr.P.C.

2. In the application, it is stated that petitioner could not file present revision petition within stipulated time because petitioner /accused had filed first revision petition against impugned order passed on application of petitioner U/sec 311 Cr. P. C instead of application U/sec 145 (2) N. I. Act and that first revision petition was dismissed on 19.05.2022.

3. It is stated that petitioner had filed application for condonation of delay with present revision petition because petitioner could not arrange funds for filing first revision petition.

4. It is stated that petitioner is seeking condonation of delay of 3 months and 22 days on his first revision petition. It is stated that application U/sec 311 Cr.P.C was dismissed on 22.07.2019 and petitioner received certified copy on 08.08.2019.

5. It has been prayed to allow application of petitioner in view of above stated ground.

Case Registration No. 240/2022 Arif Vs. Aditya Sharma Page no....2 of 6

6. No reply to this application of petitioner was filed by respondent and counsel for respondent straightaway addressed arguments on the application.

7. I have heard arguments on application addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including TCR.

8. Perusal of Trial Court record shows that application of petitioner / accused u/s 145(2) of NI Act was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2019 but that this order of Ld. Trial Court was not challenged earlier by petitioner and rather petitioner filed an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. before Ld. Trial Court which application was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2019.

9. Petitioner filed revision petition against order of Ld. Trial court dated 22.07.2019 which revision petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.05.2022.

10. Now, by way of present revision petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 26.04.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court. Case Registration No. 240/2022 Arif Vs. Aditya Sharma Page no....3 of 6

11. Delay in filing present revision petition is not of few months but is of about three years. Ground taken by petitioner that he did not have funds for filing revision petition does not hold water as firstly after dismissal of his application u/s 145(2) of NI Act, petitioner filed application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. before Ld. Trial Court and thereafter challenged order of Ld. Trial Court on application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. by way of revision petition and after revision petition of petitioner was dismissed, petitioner has filed present revision petition.

12. Counsel for petitioner during course of arguments submitted that petitioner could not avail appropriate remedy due to spread of pandemic of Covid­19.

13. Counsel for respondent on the other hand submitted that it is nothing but merely delaying tactics on part of petitioner as matter before Ld. Trial Court is at stage of final arguments.

14. Impugned order is dated 26.04.2019 i.e. much before pandemic of Covid­19 spread and petitioner before start of Case Registration No. 240/2022 Arif Vs. Aditya Sharma Page no....4 of 6 pandemic of Covid­19 filed application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. before Ld. Trial Court and thereafter filed revision petition bearing No. 837/2019 before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.05.2022 and immediately thereafter, petitioner filed present revision petition. Matter is pending for final arguments before Ld. Trial Court. There does not appear to be bonafide of petitioner for filing present revision petition nor ground taken or pleaded appears to be reasonable and confidence inspiring. Revision petition filed by petitioner appears to be an attempt by petitioner to delay proceedings before Ld. Trial Court. No ground is made out to allow application of petitioner. Application filed by petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing present revision petition is therefore dismissed. When delay in filing of revision petition has not been condoned, revision petition filed by petitioner also stands dismissed as consequence thereof.

15. Let copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court Case Registration No. 240/2022 Arif Vs. Aditya Sharma Page no....5 of 6 alongwith TCR. 

       Dictated and Announced                       (Sonu Agnihotri)
       in the open court on 02.08.2022            ASJ­03 (South­East),
                                                  Saket Courts, Delhi




Case Registration No. 240/2022   Arif Vs. Aditya Sharma    Page no....6 of 6