Delhi District Court
Amanpreet Sandhu vs State on 13 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 80/19
1. Amanpreet Sandhu
W/o Sh. Shaurya Shandilya
R/o 27/101, Eastend Apartments
Mayur Vihar, Phase I Extn.
Delhi 110091. ........Revisionist
Versus
1. State
Through
Ld. Addl. PP
East District
Karkardooma Courts.
2. Shaurya Shandilya
S/o Sh. U.K.Shandilya
R/o B166, Mount Kailash
East of Kailash
New Delhi - 110065. ....Respondents
Date of Assignment : 10.04.2019
Date of Arguments : 07.03.2020
Date of Judgment : 13.05.2020
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition u/s 397/399 Cr.P.C. filed by the Revisionist herein (accused before the Ld. Trial Court), Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 1 of 11 challenging the impugned order dated 23.10.2018 and subsequent order dated 11.01.2019 passed in a complaint case bearing CC No. 51345/2016 passed by Shri Amit Arora, Ld. ACMM, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The revision petition is also accompanied with an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
2. Vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2018, the Ld. ACMM held that prima facie case u/s 499 IPC was made out against the revisionist herein. On 11.01.2019 notice u/s 499 IPC was framed against the revisionist.
3. The brief facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the respondent no. 2 herein has filed a complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. against the revisionist herein. In his presummoning evidence the respondent no. 2 examined himself as CW1. He also examined one Ms. Gunjan Sahni as CW2 and Shri Vikram Sharma as CW3. Vide order dated 19.11.2015, the revisionist herein was summoned by the Ld. Trial Court for the offences Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 2 of 11 punishable under Section 499/ 500 IPC. Vide impugned order dated 23.10.2018, the Ld. Trial Court held that prima facie case u/s 499 IPC was made out against the revisionist herein.
4. The revisionist being aggrieved with the impugned order has challenged the same on various grounds.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist and Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2. I have also perused the record, written arguments filed by the parties and the case law relied upon by them.
6. The revision petition is accompanied by the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for revisionist that the revisionist did not file the revision petition after passing of the order dated 23.10.2018 and waited for the order dated 11.01.2019. It was submitted that in fact the revision petition should have been filed after 23.10.2018. But due to the wrong legal advice she waited for the next date i.e. Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 3 of 11 11.01.2019. It was submitted that apart from the said reason the delay in filing the revision petition also occurred due to the bad health of the child of the revisionist herein as her child is suffering from autism. The delay in filing the revision petition took place due to the financial problem faced by the revisionist herein. It was submitted that there is a delay of 77 days in filing the revision petition and same may be condoned due to the facts and circumstances explained by the revisionist.
7. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is bad in law and against the settled principles of law. It was argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that at the time of framing notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. the Court is not supposed to frame the notice in a mechanical manner and in the present case the Ld. Trial Court has ordered the framing of notice in a mechanical manner. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe the fact that the present case has been filed with an ulterior motive Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 4 of 11 and in order to take revenge from the revisionist and her family members. The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that allegations against the revisionist are vague in nature. There is no publication of the alleged defamatory material as per the requirement of law and therefore, no case is made out against the revisionist. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the revision petition being time barred is not maintainable. It was argued that the revisionist has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It was argued that the grounds put forward by the revisionist for condonation of delay are self contradictory. It was submitted that the revisionist herein has not mentioned as to when and from whom she received wrong legal advice. Nor any complaint has been filed against the counsel for giving wrong legal advice. It was submitted that the ignorance of law is no excuse. It was argued that the ground of financial crises is also baseless as respondent no. 2 is paying an Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 5 of 11 interim maintenance @ Rs. 1.75 lacs per month and a sum of Rs. 80 lacs has been paid to the revisionist by the respondent no. 2. The revisionist is also employed as a permanent employee on the post of Visa Officer in the Australian High Commission at New Delhi. She is getting salary of Rs. 65,692/ per month. Therefore, under these circumstances, the revisionist is having sufficient financial means to fight the legal battle. It was also argued that so far as the ground of ill health of the child is concerned, the same is also wrong and false. It was submitted that the child is a school going child. He goes and attends a normal school. The revisionist has never taken any leave on the ground of illness of her child. The revisionist was attending her duties regularly and thus, there was nothing which has estopped her from filing the revision petition. It was submitted that the application for condonation of delay is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal.
9. On merits, it was submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified. It was submitted that the statements of CWs namely Sh. Vikram Sharma and Ms. Gunjan Sahni have Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 6 of 11 corroborated the case of the complainant / respondent no. 2. It was argued that the statements of Sh. Vikram Sharma and Ms. Gunjan Sahni clearly show that the revisionist has defamed the respondent no. 2 by mentioning false and wrong allegations regarding the health of the respondent no. 2, in the pleadings filed by her in the Court. It was argued that therefore the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.
10. Along with the revision petition the revisionist has filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 23.10.2018 and order dated 11.01.2019. The perusal of the file shows that in fact the order under challenge is order dated 23.10.2018 whereby the Ld. Trial Court has held that a prima facie case u/s 499 IPC was made out against the revisionist herein. The perusal of the record further shows that no order dated 11.01.2019 was passed. On 11.01.2019 only a notice for the offence punishable u/s 499 IPC was framed against the revisionist herein. Hence, the only order under challenge is order Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 7 of 11 dated 23.10.2018.
11. The present revision petition was filed on 09.04.2019. The period of limitation for filing the petition was 90 days from 23.10.2018 which expired on 21.01.2019. Thus, there is delay of 78 days in filing the revision petition.
12. The first ground which the revisionist has taken for seeking condonation of delay is that she was wrongly advised that she had to wait till 11.01.2019 for filing the revision petition. The case of the revisionist is that this revision petition should have been filed after passing of the order dated 23.10.2018 but due to wrong legal advice she could not do so. It is important to note that the revisionist and respondent no. 2 are involved in various litigations between them and the revisionist is represented by an Advocate. The revisionist has not stated anywhere as to by whom and when she was given wrong legal advice. Her assertion in this regard is very vague. The revisionist has also not taken any action against the counsel who had given her wrong legal advice. Moreover, the Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 8 of 11 settled position of law is that ignorance of law is no excuse. Therefore, this ground taken by the revisionist for seeking condonation of delay is without any merit.
13. The other ground taken by the revisionist for seeking condonation of delay is that her child suffers from health problem and on this account she was disturbed and could not file the revision petition within the period of limitation. However, the revisionist has not filed any cogent material on record to show that her child was seriously ill or that she was taking care of her child throughout the said period. The revisionist is admittedly a working lady and it is not her case that she did not attend her duties during the said period. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no. 2 is that the child is school going child and he is attending the normal school regularly. It is also the case of respondent no. 2 that revisionist is employed as Visa Officer in Australian High Commission at New Delhi and she was attending her duties. The revisionist has not filed any material on record to rebut the said averments made by the respondent no. 2. Hence, this plea raised Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 9 of 11 by the revisionist for seeking condonation of delay cannot be accepted.
14. The other ground taken by the revisionist for condonation of delay is financial problem due to non payment of maintenance or untimely payment of maintenance by respondent no. 2. The case of the respondent no. 2 is that he is paying interim maintenance to the revisionist @ 1.75 lacs per month and he had paid her approximately an amount of Rs. 80 lacs in total. The revisionist is also stated to be working as Visa Officer in Australian High Commission at New Delhi and is getting a salary of Rs. 65,692/. Therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be believed that the revisionist was facing any financial problem which prevented her from filing the present revision petition within the period of limitation.
15. As discussed above, there is delay of 78 days in filing the revision petition. The requirement of law is that the applicant has to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day for Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 10 of 11 seeking condonation of delay. It has been discussed above that the grounds taken by the revisionist for seeking condonation of delay are not acceptable. Hence, there is no ground to condone a long delay of 78 days in filing the revision petition. Therefore, the application filed by the revisionist u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed.
16. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the present revision petition is not maintainable being time barred and the same is dismissed, accordingly and the impugned order is upheld.
17. The copy of this Judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with Trial Court Record.
18. The revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(This judgment has been typed on my dictation directly by the P.A.) Announced in the Open Court (Surinder Kumar Sharma) on 13.05.2020 ASJ05, East District : KKD Courts Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 80/19 Page 11 of 11