M.Manoharan v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Represented Through Its The Inspector Of Police,

in Crl.R.C.(MD)SR.No.32411 of 2025 SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Heard Mr.T.Selvan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for the first respondent.

2.Mr.T.Selvan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 107 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case.

3.This Court, vide order, dated 09.09.2025, issued notice to the second respondent by RPAD as well as through private mode. 4.As per the Office report, dated 10.10.2025, notice sent by RPAD has been served on the second respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the proof of service and the notice thorugh private mode has been served on the second respondent. However, when the matter is being taken up for hearing today, neither the second respondent nor any Counsel representing the second respondent appeared before this Court today. Thus, it appears that 1/3

the second respondent is not interested to pursue this delay condonation application.

5.Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for the first respondent has stated that he has no objection to allowing this petition. 6.Being satisfying with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the delay of 107 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case is condoned.

7.Office is directed to number the Criminal Revision Case, if it is otherwise in order, forthwith.

13.10.2025 cmr 2/3

SHAMIM AHMED, J .

cmr 13.10.2025 3/3