The court emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay, highlighting that procedural errors should not obstruct substantial justice when sufficient cause is shown.

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 Indian Penal Code which was registered as Summary Criminal Case No. 12567/2021. Learned Magistrate by its order dated 15.11.2022 issued process against the petitioner and his father. After passing the order dated 15.11.2022 of issue process, it appears that the summon was issued and the same was served on the petitioner on 20.03.2023. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on 21.03.2023. It further appears from the record that the petitioner has filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) on 24.04.2023. However, the discharge application was withdrawn by the petitioner on 14.08.2023. Thereafter, a revision was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay on 23.08.2023. However, by the impugned order, the said application 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. Against which order, the present petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay is not intentional and deliberate. However, it is purely circumstantial. He has invited my attention to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code for discharge. He submits that the petitioner was pursuing wrong remedy. The application was filed by the petitioner himself as a party in-person and therefore, he was not aware of the fact that the order of issue of process cannot be challenged therein. However, after engaging the Advocate on his behalf, it was realized that the application under Section 227 of the Code is not maintainable and therefore, the said application filed by the petitioner was withdrawn and thereafter, the order dated 15.11.2022 was challenged in revision along with an application for condonation of delay. He further submits that the application filed by the petitioner would indicate sufficient cause shown by the petitioner and as the petitioner was pursuing a wrong remedy, in which time has been consumed. He has invited my attention to the contents of the application filed before the Revisional Court for condonation of delay, wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner did not engage the services of any Advocate to contest the case and appeared in-person, therefore on 24.04.2023, the application was filed under Section 227 of the Code for discharging him from the case. It is further stated that the petitioner is a layman and does not understand intricacies of the procedural aspects of law and from starting it was the intention of the petitioner to challenge the order of issuance of process, however he has pursued the wrong remedy. It further appears from the contents in the petition that the petitioner is residing in Bombay and t