Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J.
Dinesh Shastri - Petitioner
Versus
Vinod Bhasin & Ors. - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 3726 of 2026 & CRL.M.A. 15106 of 2026
Decided On : 13-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appellate and Revisional Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Practice and Procedure - Application for condonation of delay - Evidence - An application for condonation of delay must be supported by cogent and specific evidence - In the absence of supporting affidavits from the petitioner and substantiated documentation regarding health or financial capacity, the court cannot accept generic claims of inability to act within the prescribed period - Lack of due diligence and a casual approach to legal remedies disentitle a litigant from seeking condonation. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint which was dismissed by the trial court. Nearly three years later, a revision petition was filed, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay citing health issues and financial difficulties. The revisional court rejected the application due to the lack of evidence and the inordinate, unexplained delay, subsequently dismissing the revision petition as time-barred. The petitioner challenged this dismissal in the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any document or objective proof to substantiate the claims of illness or financial incapacity. The application was deemed sketchy, lacking necessary material particulars, and was not even supported by the petitioner's own affidavit. The court emphasized that the prolonged, unexplained delay demonstrated a lack of due diligence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the unexplained, inordinate delay in filing the revision petition could be condoned based on vague assertions, and whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plea as barred by time.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of limitation is based on sound public policy and equity; while the court has the power to condone delay, this power is discretionary and is not a matter of generosity or sympathy. A litigant who act with negligence and fails to lead evidence to explain the time gap in its entirety cannot claim condonation as a right, as the finality of litigation is a competing interest that must be protected.
Result: Petition dismissed in limine.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sarvesh Singh, Advocate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the statutory limitation period for filing a criminal revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. requirement of sufficient cause and material evidence to justify condonation of inordinate delay. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. condonation of delay as a discretionary judicial power governed by principles of equity, diligence, and finality. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. finality of judicial dismissal of a petition barred by limitation. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ JAIN, J.
1. The petitioner herein had filed a complaint before the concerned Magisterial Court and also prayed for registration of FIR and investigation by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. His such application, however, did not find favour and he was directed to lead pre-summoning evidence.
3. He led pre-summoning evidence and the learned Trial Court, after perusal of such pre-summoning evidence and after hearing counsel for the complainant, dismissed his complaint on 09.06.2022. The learned Trial Court recorded that there were only oral averments and complainant had not produced any document or any other evidence to substantiate his averments and, therefore, the Court did not find any reason to issue summons to any of the accused as complainant failed to show prima-facie case against any of them.
4. The petitioner took exception to the abovesaid order of dismissal dated 09.06.2022 and filed a Revision Petition before the learned Court of Sessions.
5. However, such Revision Petition was filed in the year 2025 and, since there was inordinate delay in lodging the Revisions Petition, he also moved an application seeking condonation of delay.
6. Learned Revisional Court heard arguments with respect to the condonation of delay and declined to condone the delay and, resultantly, the Revision Petition has been dismissed, being barred by limitation.
7. Such order dated 19.11.2025 is under challenge.
8. Admittedly, the period of filing any revision is 90 days and there was inordinate delay.
9. The learned Revisional Court noted down all the facts and came to the conclusion that the delay had not been explained. The relevant paragraphs of the abovesaid order dated 19.11.2025 read as under:-
“6. As per article 131, in the schedule to the Limitation Act 1963, the limitation period for filing a criminal revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. before this court is 90 days. Admittedly, revisionist did not file the present revision petition within 90 days of the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In the application it is stated as soon as the revisionist got the order he filed the revision petition after managing his finance. It is also stated that applicant was unwell and incapacitated on account of healtl1 reasons .
8. In so far as the submission that revisionist was unable to appear or was managing his finance can not be believed as not even a single document has been tiled on record to show that revisionist was suffering from any health issue which prevented him from filing the revision. The impugned order is on dated 09.06.2022 and the revision was filed on 12.03.2025 almost alter 3 years.
9. It was next argued that as soon as the certified copy was made available the revision of filed. The perusal fo the file shows that certified copy or the order has been placed on record which shows the stamps of the copying agency. The same suggest that certified copy was applied on 05.04.2024 and same was ready by 01.05.2024. even if the submission or the counsel is to be taken at its face value the certified copies were ready by 01.05.2024 and the revision was filed almost after 10 month thereafter. There is no explanation as to what was the complainant doing from 09.06.2022 till April 2024 or from 01.04.2024 till the filing of the present revision petition.
10. I do not find any merit in the application seeking condonation of delay, the same is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation and is accordingly d
