Mogishetla Bandeppa Goud v. The State Of Telangana

'.t

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA l.A. NO. 1 0F 2021 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 148 OF 2021 Crl.R.C.No. 148 of 2021 :

Crl. Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C. , 1973 aggrieved by the order dated 19-10-2018 in M.G.No. 5 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad Between:

lvlogishetla Bandeppa Goud, S/o. Late Yeerappa, Aged 49 Years, Occ. Pvt Em-ployee, Rl/o. H.no.1-3/1 , Ivlanthangod Villgge,__Basheerabad Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict.

...PETITIONER/ Respondent in both AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Parwathapally @ Mogishetla Vijay Lakshmi, Wo. Mogishetlg Ba1!-ep-p.9 Gopud, Aged 43'Y-ears, Occ Housewife, No. H.no.4-1-452,.-119.!1, Alampally Road, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. . .-.RESPONDENTS/ " Respondents IANO:1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances siated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (758) days for filing of the criminal Revision CASE, otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and it cannot be compensated in any manner in the interest of justice. IA NO;2 0F 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in M.C.No.S of 2015' dated 19.10.2018'

passed by the learned Hon'ble Judicial First Class firlagistrate, at Vikarabad pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

IA NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.'1lRevision Petitioner the Revision Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs 40001 per month from this month and continue the same and (ii) clear all the arrears pending ie Rs.3,05,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Five Thousand only) to the Respondent No.2 as explained in para-llof the counter affidavit during the pendency of the above said CRLRC with immediate effect .

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. BUCHI BABU Counsel forthe Respondent NO.1 :THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: M/S. K. LAXMI MANOHAR The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA I.A.No.1 of 2O2L IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.14a of 2O2l COMMON ORDER:

Challenge in the Criminal Revision Case is the order that is rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, 1n M.C.No.S of 2015, dated 19.10.2018.

2.

As there is a delay of 758 days 1n filing the Criminal Revision Case, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.l of 2O2l seeking the Court to condone the said delay.

3.

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4.

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, the petitioner contended that he preferred the Criminal Revision Case to set aside the order that was rendered in M.C.No.S of 2015, dated 19.10.2018 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, and \

Dr. CSLJ Crl.RC.No.l48 ot202l due to ill-health, he could not {ile the revision case in time and, therefore, said delay has to be condoned.

5.

Arguing the matter, learned counsel stated that in the maintenance case, immediately after receiving summons from the Court, the petitioner engaged an Advocate, but he could not file counter due to illness and thereafter he approached the Advocate the petitioner. The rearned counsel also contended that respondent No.2 is living with another person and, therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint to police and, thus, respondent No.2 is not entitled to seek maintenance. Learned counser for ttre petitioner also contended that the petitioner suffered from jaundice and took. Ayurvedic treatment and, therefore, there is a delay of 758 days in preferring the present Criminal Revision .

Case. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that as respondent No.2 is living in adultery, she is not entitled for maintenance, and hence, the petitioner has challenged the order of the trial Court, which granted maintenance and, therefore, by condoning the delay, the order dated 19.10.20 1g rendered b tthe tria-l Court has to be set aside.

J Dr. CSL.J Crl R.C.No.l46 of 202 I 6.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 stated that not even a single rupee is paid towards maintenance till now by the petitioner and the petitioner is earning more than Rs.3,5O,O0O/- per month and further-more respondent No.2 is suffering from serious illness.

7 .

Keeping the merits of the case aside, the delay occurred in I filing the Criminal Revision Case is inordinate and no convincing reason or explanation is assigned by the petitioner as to why such an inordinate delay of 758 days has occasioned in preferring the Criminal Revision Case. Further-more, no Medical Report is filed to show that during the relevant period of time, the petitioner was suffering from ill-health. Though the petitioner contended that he I I was suffering from jaundice and was taking A1'urvedic treatment, nothing would have prevented the petitioner to contact his counsel over phone and sigrr the relevant documents, including vakalat for filing the Revision Case within time or within a reasonable period of time. Further-more, the illness shown i'e' jaundice is not such a deadly disease that would prevent a person from pursuing the daily pursuits or attending his ldeil'r

Dr CSL.J Crl.R C No.t4E of202l necessities' Also, when the delay occurred is inordinate, there is every necessitlr on the part of a person, who seeks condonation of such an inordinate delay, to explain in clear terms the reasons as to why such an inordinate delay has occurred. Time and again, in catena of decisions, this Court as well as the Hon,ble Apex Court stated that where the delay occurred is inordinate, the Courts should not condone the same in a routine manner. Inconvenience of the other party should also be looked into while condoning such an inordinate delay. In the case on hand, the delay is more than two years and the explanation offered for such an inordinate delay is not convincing.

The reasons shown are neither cogent nor Court is of the view that the present application filed seekjng to condone the delay of 758 days in preferring the Crimina_l Revision Case is unsustainable and the same deserves to be dismissed reliable. Therefore, this B.

Resultantly, I.A.No. I of 2O2L filed seeking the Court to condone the delal' of 758 days in preferring the criminal Re'ision Case is dismissed.

Dr. CSL,J Crl R.C No.l18 of202I 9.

Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case stands rejected.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

II SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER Il ,n" Judicial Magistrate of First Class'^Vikarabad' Ranga Reddy D^istrict' i. iffi Cc;i; i,bli; P;;;;i;;: High b"urt at Hvderabad ror the State of Telanqana (OUT) a 5""E6'i3 sirr.'(. eubHt BABU, Advocate to-P-VgJ. ;. il; ;6 i6 s-nik r-u*rni Manonai' Advocate (oPUC)

5. Two CD CoPies

6. One SPare CoPY 4\x'

HIGH COURT DATED:0 410812022 S'l'A fc Q1 ( 'rY 24 tl'ilr] 2m \,(k::;;?

s,i/ i'

ORDER

CRLRC.No.148 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE lA No. tl 2021 AND REJECTEDTHE CITLRC \K"