Delhi District Court
All R/O H. No. C-496 vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 212/2023
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
In the matter of:
(I) Ravi Verma
s/o Shri Suresh Chand
(ii) Suresh Chand
s/o Shri Laxmi Chand
(iii) Santosh Devi
w/o Shri Suresh Chand
All r/o H. No. C-496, Street No. 5,
Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110093.
..........Revisionists
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi
..........Respondent
Date of Institution : 17.08.2023
Reserved on : 17.08.2023
Announced on : 17.08.2023
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the Court shall dispose of an application filed u/s 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, and the present revision petition against impugned order dated 19.11.2022 of Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-03, Shahdara thereby framing charge against revisionist no. 2 & 3 for offence u/s 498-A IPC and u/s 406 IPC respectively.
CR No. 212/2023Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 7
2. The present revision petition has been moved before this Court today i.e. 17.08.2023 with a delay of about 179 days of the passing of impugned order on 19.11.2022.
3. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionists that the previous counsel of the revisionists did not guide them appropriately and since they intended to address their grievance, they approached the previous counsel for return of their file. It is stated that the present counsel was engaged recently and it took him about three months time to prepare and file the revision petition. It is submitted that the delay in filing the revision petition was neither intentional nor deliberate and the circumstances were beyond the control of revisionist. It is argued that revisionists will suffered irreparable loss if the application is not allowed and therefore, purely in the interest of justice, the application be allowed and the revision be admitted.
4. Submissions heard at length. Record perused.
5. This Court has gone through the application moved on behalf of revisionists u/s 5 of Limitation Act. There are two specific grounds raised in the said application, one, that revisionists wanted to address their grievance on the next date of hearing in main case titled 'State vs. Ravi Verma', and second, that revisionists approached their previous counsel for return of the file and engage the present counsel who took three months to prepare and file the present revision petition. Revisionists have also raised the ground of financial constraints for filing the present petition by delay.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order and the other ordersheets particularly one dated 31.03.2023 & CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 7 24.07.2023, it is noted that revisionists were duly represented by a counsel and there appears no ground to presume that they were either unrepresented due to financial constraints or were not represented or guided appropriately. Further, on 19.11.2022, when the impugned was passed, revisionists were duly represented by a counsel and the order was passed in their presence and the charge was also framed against them on the same date. The arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for revisionists also find due mention in the impugned order.
6.1 Further, the ground that revisionists wanted to address their grievance on the next date of hearing i.e. 31.03.2023 is superfluous as no application for review of the impugned order or discharge of revisionist could have been legally filed before Ld. Trial Court which passed the impugned order on charge. Such a ground cannot be accepted. 6.2 It is admittedly stated that it took the present Ld. Counsel about three months time to prepare and file the revision petition. Such an argument cannot even prima facie be considered. Since the Ld. Counsel knew that the period of limitation for filing revision petition had already expired by the time revisionists approached him, he should have acted proactively to file revision petition at the earliest. 6.3. The application u/s 5 of Limitation Act is bereft of necessary details explaining the inordinate delay of about 179 days. The application does not even specify the number of days of delay it seeks condonation for. It must be understood that Sec. 5 Limitation Act is neither a mere formality nor a right of the revisionists to seek condonation of unexplained and unaccounted CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 7 delay.
7. In the opinion of this Court, all the grounds raised by revisionists for seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition appear an afterthought, superficial and fanciful. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer', (2013) 14 SCC 81 observed that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the 'sufficient cause' which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. In another case titled 'Lingeswaran vs. Thirunagalingam' 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227, Hon'ble Supreme Court against reiterated that the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. The Apex Court also observed that when it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed.
8. In the opinion of this Court, revisionists have failed to justify the grounds seeking condonation of delay and have further failed to raise any 'sufficient cause' for seeking such a relief. All the grounds asserted in the application have been found to be an afterthought or mere fanciful. The law cannot help an indolent and as such, no ground to allow the application is made CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 7 out. The application u/s 5 Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Since the application stands dismissed, the present revision petition can also not be technically admitted. The same also deserves to be, consequently, dismissed.
9. This Court has, however, gone through the contents of the revision petition and the grounds challenging the impugned order. It is the case of revisionists that after marriage between complainant and revisionist no. 1 on 01.03.2017 till their separation on 03.02.2019, no complaint or PCR call was ever made or lodged against the revisionist and malafide conduct or physical or verbal assault was brought on record by the complainant. It is also the case that revisionists never demanded any dowry article or dowry from the complainant and she has not brought on record any bill or receipt in support of her version. It is the case that on 03.02.2019, complainant left the matrimonial home out of her own willingness and the allegations of throwing her out of the house are completely baseless. It is the case that there are no specific allegations against revisionist no. 2 & 3 making out a case of discharge. It is emphasised that revisionists are victims of circumstances as they were falsely implicated by the complainant. It is stated that the revisionists filed an application dated 19.02.2019 against complainant apprehending false implication and the same was never considered. It is also stated that Ld. Trial Court without going into the merits of the case and ingredients of the offence, framed charges against the revisionists. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 7 material placed on record by the prosecution and as such, revisionist no. 2 & 3 deserve to be discharged.
10. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions vis-a-vis the impugned order. Firstly, the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel before Ld. Trial Court as well as case law relied upon by him have been duly mentioned in the impugned order. Secondly, revisionist no. 1 & 2 have been discharged for the offence u/s 406 IPC and revisionist no. 3 was discharged for offence u/s 498-A IPC. As such, the contention that Ld. Trial Court passed the order without going into the merits of the case and without granting adequate time to the revisionists to address their concerns, is absolutely groundless. Thirdly, all the contentions raised in the present revision petition are in the form of defence of the revisionists against the case of prosecution and the same may be appreciated only during trial, and cannot have any bearing on the nature of charge to be framed by Ld. Trial Court. In this regard, the law is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi' (2005) 1 SCC 568. Fourthly, the allegations in the FIR make out the charged offence against revisionists. In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar' (2022) does not come to the rescue of the revisionists. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled 'Neera Singh vs. State', 138 (2007) DLT 152 relied upon by Ld. Counsel for revisionists is distinguishable on facts. Further, the judgment titled 'Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand', (2003) Cri.L.J 2759 (Delhi) is also distinguishable on facts as in the said case the CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 7 husband was charged for the offence only u/s 406 IPC and the other in-laws were discharged. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition preferred by wife against the said order. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Priti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand' (2010) is also not applicable to the present case as the same was against the final judgment and was filed by married sister-in-law.
11. In the opinion of this Court, Ld. Trial Court has duly considered all the aspects of the case and has accorded sufficient reasons for passing the impugned order of framing of charge.
12. In view of the discussion in preceding paragraphs, this Court does not find any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 19.11.2022. The same appears to have been passed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for necessary intimation.
Dictated & announced in the open Court on 17.08.2023.
(ARVIND BANSAL) Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 7