Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
M. M. NERLIKAR
Ankit S/o. Kiran Padhye – Appellant
Versus
Avinash S/o Bhaskar Padhye – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.D. Dani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. W. Patil, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points:- The petition challenges a non-acceptance of delay condonation in a criminal revision under BNSS Section 528 and Article 227. (!) - The court adopts a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. (!) (!) (!) - Delays are to be weighed with factors including conduct, lack of mala fides, and circumstances; inordinate delays attract strict scrutiny, while short delays may be liberalized. (!) (!)

How to condone delay in a criminal revision under BNSS Section 528 and Article 227 of the Constitution?What is the standard for sufficient cause and liberal approach in condonation of delay as applied to the present case?What are the consequences and costs when delay is condoned and the order is set aside?

Table of Content
1. summary of the case background (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments for condoning delay (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis on delay justification (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal principles guiding delay condonation (Para 12)
5. final order delivered (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

M. M. Nerlikar, J.

Heard.

2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. B. W. Patil, learned counsel waives service for respondent. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”) challenges the order passed below Exh.1 dated 17.07.2025, wherein the application for condonation of delay of 190 days in preferring the criminal revision challenging the order of issuance of process was rejected by the Special Court for Differently-able Persons, Senior Citizens and Marginalized Sections of the Society, Nagpur and District Judge-10 & A.S.J., Nagpur.

4. Brief facts:-

The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 500 of the