K.Bagiyam v. Balasingham

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and K.Bagiyam W/o. Kaliappan, No.9/3A, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Press Colony Post, Coimbatore.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Balasingham S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, No.9/3A, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Press Colony Post, Coimbatore.

2. Rajendran @ Rajaram S/o. Thangapandian, No.9/3A, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Press Colony Post, Coimbatore.

3. Muthusamy S/o. Muthu Gounder, No.4/21, South Street, No.4, Veerapandi Post, Coimbatore.

..Respondent(s)

K.Bagiyam ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Balasingham S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, No.9/3A, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Press Colony Post, Coimbatore.

2.Rajendran @ Rajaram S/o. Thangapandian, No.9/3A, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Press Colony Post, Coimbatore.

3.Muthusamy S/o. Muthu Gounder, No.4/21, South Street, No.4, Veerapandi Post, Coimbatore.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: To condone the delay of 1301 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.3367 of 2019. CRL RC SR No. 102923 of 2026 Prayer: To set aside the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.3367 of 2019. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.L.Mouli

Order The petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1301 days in challenging the order dismissing the petitioner's complaint filed for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

2.The petitioner is the complainant in Crime No.204/2008 filed under Section 457 and 380 of IPC. The Periyanaickenpalayam Police, Coimbatore after conducting investigation filed a negative final report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., with a delay of 933 days. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court and has filed the above condone delay petition seeking to condone the delay of 1301 days in filing the Revision.

3.The reasons stated by the petitioner was that she had engaged a counsel and the counsel had not presented the Revision. The averments in the condone delay petition are vague. There is no averment as to when the papers were handed over to the counsel. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2008. The complaint before the trial Court was itself filed with a

delay of 933 days. The Revision is filed after a delay of another 1301 days, which has not been explained. There must be a finality to the proceedings. It cannot be resurrected at the whims and fancies of the petitioner. 4.Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed.

10-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order The Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore

SUNDER MOHAN J.

TSG and 10-02-2026