ORDER

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. Instant application, i.e. CRL.M.A. 15058/2017, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 458 days in filing the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Deepak Bajpai.

2. Brief facts as stated are that the respondent No.2/complainant, i.e. Arun Jaitley, had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons, i.e. Arvind Kejriwal, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh, Kumar Vishwas, Raghav Chadha and Deepak Bajpai (petitioner herein), alleging therein that the said persons had committed offences under Sections

499/500/501/502 IPC read with Sections 34/35 IPC.

3. Thereafter, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after closing the pre-summoning evidence and hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties vide order dated 09.03.2016 summoned all the accused persons (including the present petitioner) for the offence under Section 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

4. Subsequently, on 24.10.2016 the said accused persons (including the petitioner) moved joint application seeking permission to address arguments at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

5. Vide order dated 30.01.2017 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the accused persons with the view that the application is bereft of any merit, mala fide and filed solely with a view to stall the trial.

6. Consequently, vide order dated 25.03.2017 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against all the accused persons (including the petitioner)

for the offence under Sections 500/34 IPC.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 24.10.2016, 30.01.2017 and 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No. 210/01/15 the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition along with instant application for condonation of delay of 458 days in filing the present revision petition.

8. By this order I shall dispose of the application for condonation of delay of 458 days filed on behalf of the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that refusal to condone the delay will result in throwing out a meritorious case in the threshold. The orders which have been challenged are patently void and illegal and the delay should be condoned so that substantial justice can be done and the meritorious matter is not thrown out on technical grounds. He has further submitted that pure question of law are involved in this matter and substantial justice deserves that the petitioner be heard despite there being a delay of 458 days.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has an excellent arguable case on merits.

10. He has further submitted that the delay has not occasioned deliberately. He has further submitted that the petitioner being a public figure was involved in different duties of elections and the cause of delay has been mentioned in rejoinder. He has further submitted that the delay has not occasioned due to culpable negligence. He has further submitted that the expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic so that the Courts can apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of justice.

11. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments:-

i. Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. vs. Mst.

Katiji and Ors; (1987) 2 SCC 107.

ii. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Girdharilal Sapuru and Ors; (1981) 2 SCC 758.

iii. Union of India vs. Giani; (2011) 11 SCC 480.

12. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner while arguing the condonation application under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has submitted that the application moved on behalf of the present petitioner is a bona fide application which is supported with affidavit of the petitio