Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
State NCT of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Pargun & Anr - Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 344 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Condonation of Delay - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482, Limitation Act - Section 5 - 468 - The court discussed the condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court also examined the relevant provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and Section 188 IPC, highlighting the limitation period for taking cognizance and the nature of the offence punishable with imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The revision petition was filed to set aside an order passed by the learned ACMM, which refused to take cognizance of the charge-sheet due to the delay in filing.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the condonation of delay in one application but dismissed the other application due to lack of cogent reasons explaining the delay. The court also found no merits in the petition and dismissed it on the ground of delay in filing the chargesheet beyond the limitation period.
Issues: The issues involved the condonation of delay in filing the petition, refusal of cognizance by the ACMM, and the nature of the offence in relation to the limitation period for taking cognizance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 468 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the importance of providing cogent reasons for condonation of delay and upheld the limitation period for taking cognizance based on the nature of the offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed one application for condonation of delay but dismissed the petition on the ground of delay in filing the chargesheet beyond the limitation period.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 7818/2024 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 7819/2024 (D/R/52 days)
3. By way of present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 52 days in re-filing the petition.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 52 days in re-filing the petition is condoned.
5. Application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 344/2024 & CRL.M.A. 7817/2024 (D/568 days)
6. By way of CRL.M.A. 7817/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 568 days in filing the petition.
7. The ground urged in the application is that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 08.10.2021 was received on 22.10.2021 and further that the approval was granted by the Director of Prosecution on 26.11.2021.
8. The application is bereft of any cogent reasons explaining the delay and is liable be dismissed.
9. Irrespective of the same, the Court proceeds to examine the petition on merits as well.
10. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C whereby the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by learned ACMM (North-West), Rohini District Court, Delhi in CR Case No.8609/2021 titled `State v. Pargun' arising out of FIR No.243/2020 registered under Sections 188/269/270 IPC at PS Bharat Nagar.
11. Vide the aforesaid order, learned ACMM has refused to take cognizance as the charge-sheet came to be filed beyond the period of limitation.
12. Pertinently, the FIR in the present case came to be registered on 17.04.2020 i.e. during COVID-19 pandemic when lockdown was imposed by the administration. As per the directions issued by the concerned ACP, Sub-Division, Ashok Vihar, the public at large was directed to wear facial mask and was also directed to maintain social distancing. On the aforesaid day, while the police officials were on patrolling duty, they saw some persons talking to each other and were not wearing mask. On seeing the police officials, all of them ran away except the present respondents.
13. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the disobedience of the order amounted to a serious offence and that instead of declining to take cognizance of the charge-sheet on technical ground of limitation, the material placed on record ought to have been appreciated.
14. In the present matter, the issue relates to limitation and therefore, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provision i.e. Section 468 Cr.P.C. which prescribes the limitation period w.r.t. criminal cases. The same reads as under:
"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation-
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years..."
15. The charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed under Section 188 IPC only. Section 188 IPC reads as under:
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant-
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of providing cogent reasons for condonation of delay and upholding the limitation period for taking cognizance based on the nat....
Cognizance of offence – Limitation - For computing the limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing complaint or the institution of prosecution and not the date on whi....
The period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence is computed from the date of the offence until the date of filing the charge-sheet or complaint. Cognizance taken after the expiry of this....
The court reaffirmed that a sufficient cause must be established for condoning delays under the Limitation Act, and that the discretion to condone such delays is not to be exercised lightly.
The Court can only condone a delay if there is a "sufficient cause" behind such delay, and the reasons provided for the delay must not be non-serious or lacking in diligence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a genuine and substantiated reason for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and highlights the need for partie....
A court should not condone inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the applicant fails to provide a bona fide, satisfactory explanation, and the delay demonstrates gross negligen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
