High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/2230/2019allowed

Abhiti Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-10-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2230 of 2019 Abhiti Tiwari, Aged about 28 years, D/o Dr. Ashok Tiwari, R/o Civil Line Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara City, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Bilaspur. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 :

Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 15/10/2019

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the CPC has been preferred by the applicant whose revision petition has been dismissed by learned 6th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 05/09/2019 holding it to be barred by limitation and rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that delay was on account of death of applicant's maternal grandfather on 10/07/2019 and therefore, she could not prefer a revision against the order dated 04/05/2019 discharging accused persons for offence under Section 397 of the CrPC on time and a delay of 29 days has been caused in filing the revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

4. Taking into consideration that a sufficient and valid reason has been assigned by the petitioner by stating that her maternal grandfather

died on 10/07/2019 due to which the revision petition against the order dated 04/05/2019 was filed with a delay of 29 days, the impugned order is hereby set aside and delay is condoned in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy1 as the delay cannot be said to be deliberate and intentional. The revision petition is restored to its original number for hearing and disposal on merits before the Court of learned 6th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur.

5. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).

6. At this stage, Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he may be allowed to withdraw his vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant. As the prayer is fair and reasonable, it is allowed.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet 1 (1998) 7 SCC 123