The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone delay in filing a revision petition due to valid reasons such as the petitioner's chronic illness, and the requirement for proper reasoning in the dismissal of delay condonation applications.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking the relief to set aside the order dated 09.02.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2018 in unnumbered Crl. Revision Petition of 2018, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry and consequently, allow the Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2018, which was filed praying to condone the delay of 93 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Heard Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Mr.K.Selvarangan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner being the complainant filed a complaint against the respondents herein under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, alleging that the respondents had committed an offence under Sections 441, 447, 378, 379, 381, 382, 390, 392, 463, 464, 465, 403, 489A to 489E of IPC. The said complaint filed by the petitioner was assigned with case number as CC. No.961 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV at Puducherry and afterwards, after affording an opportunity to the respondents, by order dated 28.06.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Puducherry, had dismissed the said application.

4. Challenging the same, the petitioner has intended to file a revision. But the same has not been filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner / complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2018 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry, praying to condone the delay of 93 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

5. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, after affording an opportunity to the respondents by order dated 09.02.2019, had dismissed the said application. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Original Petition, praying to set aside the order dated 09.02.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2018.

6. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that only due to his suffering from chronic disease, the petitioner was not able to prefer the Criminal Revision Petition in time. Further, the delay required to be condoned is only 93 days. But the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, without seeing the merits of the revision petition and without mentioning any proper reason, refused to condone the delay. Ultimately, he dismissed the application, which is erroneous in law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that for the occurrence narrated in the complaint, i.e. now referred in the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., already this Court directed the Police Officer to consider the same, by following the Lalita Kumari-s case [Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1]. After suppressing the same, now, as a second time, the petitioner preferred the same complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Puducherry. Only by holding as above, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, had dismissed the said application and therefore, interference of this court is not necessary in the order dated 09.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

8. Now, on considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also on going through the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, it seems that the application filed for condoning the delay was dismissed on two grounds. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, has specifically observed that in the application filed by the petitioner, he has not stated as to against which order he has preferred the revision petition. Further, for proving the illness of the petitioner, no document has been produced along with the petition. Also, for calculating the delay, the necessary particulars which are required were not furnished and therefore, the petition is liable for dismissal.

9. Th