$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 23.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 16.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 17.02.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 911/2024 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State along with SI Ajay.

versus NAVRAJ DAHIYA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.

Sanjay Jain, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J CRL.M.A. 20896/2024 (condonation of delay)

1. The State has approached this Court, by way of the above- captioned revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], seeking setting aside of the order dated 22.02.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟], in case arising out of FIR No. 219/2017, registered for commission of offence under Sections

323/307/342/365/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi. By way of the said order, the learned Sessions Court had discharged the respondent-

accused Navraj Dahiya in the present FIR.

2. However, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed – seeking condonation of delay of 413 days in filing the present revision petition.

3. On the issue of condonation of delay, the learned APP for the State, while referring to the averments in the application, has argued that the State could not file the present petition before this Court within the stipulated period, as the file pertaining to the present case was sent to the Chief Prosecutor (North West). Thereafter, the file was sent to the Director of Prosecution, who agreed with the Chief Prosecutor that the case was fit for appeal and forwarded the file to the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, for seeking approval to file the petition. It is further stated that the Legal Assistant, after examining the facts and the grounds mentioned in the file, processed the same for approval of the Lieutenant Governor and forwarded the file to the Principal Secretary (LJ & LA). Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Chief Secretary and was approved by the office of the Lieutenant Governor. Subsequently, the Assistant Legal Advisor forwarded the file to the Director of Prosecution for filing of the appeal in the present matter, who further forwarded it to the learned Standing Counsel (Crl.). Thereafter, the case file was assigned to Mr. Laksh Khanna, learned APP for the State. It is submitted that thereafter, the accompanying petition was drafted and sent for signatures of the concerned DCP along with the supporting affidavits, and after receipt of the same, the petition was expeditiously filed without any further delay. It is also argued that the files pertaining to the present case were sent to various authorities, as mentioned above, through multiple channels, which consumed reasonable time. It is submitted that the delay in filing the present petition was not deliberate but occurred due to procedural aspects and was, thus, unavoidable. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on the decision of State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao: (2005) 3 SCC 752 wherein it was held that sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than a technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day‟s delay, having regard to the considerable delay caused by procedural red tape in the decision-making process of the Government. It is thus prayed that the present application seeking condonation of delay of 413 days be allowed and the present revision petition be heard on merits.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present application. He has argued that no plausible reason has been shown by the State for such inordina