Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Rajaram Bagul vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 21 February, 2019
Author: K.K. Sonawane
Bench: K.K. Sonawane
1 939-CriA-3301-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
939 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3301 OF 2018
ASHOK S/O RAJARAM BAGUL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje
APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.D. Munde
....
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 21st FEBRUARY, 2019 Order :-
1. The applicant preferred present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, District Ahmednagar, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 04 of 2016.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that respondent No. 2 Karbhari Shankar Gaikwad filed private complaint against applicant and his associates for the offence punishable under sections 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa considered the factual aspect as well as circumstances on record and issued the process under sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) read with section 34 of the IPC against the so-called accused. The applicant was intending to agitate validity and propriety of impugned order of issuance of process passed by learned Magistrate by availing remedy under section 397 of the Cr.P.C.. But, there was delay of near about (131) days in filing the criminal revision application. Therefore, the ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 23:45:08 :::
2 939-CriA-3301-18 applicant moved application for condonation of (131) days delay in filing criminal revision application. However, the learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to nod in favour of the applicant and dismissed the application as there was no reasonable cause to condone the delay.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of rejection of application for condonation of delay, the applicant rushed to this Court and preferred the criminal application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking relief to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28-09- 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, District Ahmednagar, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 04 of 2016. The applicant further prayed to condone the delay caused for filing criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Newasa.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after receipt of information of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate dated 29- 08-2015, the applicant applied for certified copies. After procuring relevant documents, he preferred the criminal revision application before concerned Sessions Judge, Newasa accompanied with application for condition of delay. According to learned counsel for applicant, the concerned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the circumstances on record in its proper perspective and rejected the application on the ground that applicant did not furnish correct information and attempted to mislead the Court by false representation. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to exercise discretion in favour of applicant.
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 23:45:08 :::
3 939-CriA-3301-18
5. The scrutiny of the relevant documents on record as well as findings of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application for condonation of delay reflect that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rests on the figment of imagination. The learned Sessions Judge expressed findings that the pleadings of the applicants are cryptic and scanty in nature. The applicant averred that he learnt about the impugned order on 01-04-2016, but he did not disclose the source of his information. The explanation propounded on behalf of applicant was not acceptable to the concerned Sessions Judge. Therefore, on the basis of surmises and conjecture the learned Sessions Judge drawn the inference that the applicant had an knowledge about the impugned order of issuance of process much prior to 01-04-2016, but he intentionally did not disclose the same before the Court. It has also admitted by the learned Sessions Judge that the delay caused in this matter was not fatal but the applicant attempted to mislead the Court by giving false explanation. Therefore, he is not entitled for any discretion from the Court. The learned Sessions Judge did not exercised the discretion in favour of applicant and thereby rejected the application.
6. Undisputedly, there was a delay of (131) days in filing the criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Judge against order of issuance of process passed by the learned trial Court. It is settled law that liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach while dealing with the application for consideration of delay. In view of factual score of the matter, I find that reasonable opportunity is required to be given to ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 23:45:08 ::: 4 939-CriA-3301-18 the applicant by adopting liberal approach to file criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Court to redress his grievance. It would not justifiable to shut the door of the Court of law on technical issue. It would unjust and improper to deny the relief of condonation of delay by adopting hyper technical approach. It was incumbent on the part of learned Sessions Judge to deal with the situation for awarding substantial justice on merit to meet the ends of justice.
7. In view of aforesaid discussions, I find that application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A". The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Newasa dated 28-09-2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 04 of 2016 is hereby upset and quashed. The application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of applicant to present an criminal revision application is hereby condoned. Registry of the Court of District and Sessions Judge at Newasa to take requisite steps for further process for registration of criminal revision application filed on behalf of applicant. The concerned Sessions Judge is directed to deal with present criminal revision application on its own merit and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Application stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] MTK ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2019 23:45:08 :::