High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/3238/2019dismissed

Rajat Agarwal And ORS v. State Of Haryana

2019-12-03Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3238-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 3.12.2019 Rajat Agarwal and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Rajat Agarwal, petitioner-in-person.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. There is delay of 584 delay in filing this revision petition wherein the accused have challenged order dated 22.1.2018 passed by learned JMIC, Gurugram, framing charges for offences under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC against the accused-petitioners in respect of FIR No.625 dated 21.10.2016, Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram.

2. The petitioner, appearing in person, has submitted that the delay in filing the revision occurred on account of the fact that the counsel, despite having been instructed to file the revision, did not file the revision in time.

3. I have considered the aforesaid submission. The aforesaid submission does not find mention in the grounds set forth in the delay condonation application. The only reason furnished in the application for condonation of delay is spelt in Para 4 of the application which reads as follows :- "That the petitioners, despite being aggrieved, had not instructed for the filing of the revision petition against the aforesaid order dated 22.01.2018 in the aforesaid challan case KAMAL KUMAR 2019.12.05 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRR-3238-2019 (O&M) no.CHI 3926/16 dated 28.11.2016, based on misguided legal advice tendered to them."

4. Upon perusal of the application and upon hearing the petitioner-Rajat Agarwal, this Court finds that no sufficient cause is forthcoming for condonation of delay of 584 days in filing this revision petition. The delay is all the more marked given the fact that the petitioner himself is a practicing Advocate, who would be well aware about the nitty-gritty of law and would be expected to be much more vigilant than any other layman litigant.

5. Finding no merit in the application, the delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition which has been filed directly in this Court without choosing to approach the Sessions Court is also dismissed, being time barred.

3.12.2019 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No KAMAL KUMAR 2019.12.05 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document