Moumita Dhal Nayek v. State Of West Bengal

19.03.2026 Court No.42 Item No.12 Sudipta CRR 2807 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2025 With CRAN 2 of 2026 Moumita Dhal Nayek Vs.

State of West Bengal Mr. Kiran Sk Mr. Dipankar Das ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar ... for the State.

1.

Affidavit of service filed. Let it be taken on record. 2.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the present revision petition was badly barred by limitation as the order dated 13th November, 2024 has been challenged by this revision petition which was filed in June, 2025. Learned counsel for the State further submits that though an application for condonation of delay was filed but it was not brought to the notice of the Court. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th September, 2025 passed the order after substantially hearing the matter. 4.

The Court has considered the submissions. It is a settled proposition that if a petition is filed beyond period of limitation, the same cannot be admitted without hearing the other party on the point of condonation of delay. Admittedly, no notice of the application for condonation of delay was issued. The perusal of order dated 16th September, 2025 also indicates that it was not

brought to the notice of the Court. Be that as it may be, the Court has now gone through the application for condonation of delay. The delay can be condoned only if the petitioner explains sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay. Each day delay has to be explained with the sufficient reasons. In the entire application there are no sufficient reasons nor the delay has been explained day by day. There is a delay of around 225 days. The Court does not find any reasons for the condonation of delay. It is also necessary to mention that the present petition was filed by the de facto complainant without impleading the accused persons as a party. The accused persons are the necessary party as any order passed may prejudice the other party.

5.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the revision petition stands dismissed.

6.

Consequently, all pending connected applications, if any, stand dismissed.

7.

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)