$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026 + CRL.M.C. 1913/2024 AJIT KUMAR GOLA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person.

versus STATE (GNCTD) AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta Advs. along with SI Priyanka.

Mr Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Ankit Rana, Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Mr. Rajiv Singh, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Bharat Khurana, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra and Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Advs. for R-2 to R-7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J CRL.M.A. 17529/2024 (condonation of delay)

1. The above-captioned petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟] has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟] in Cr. Rev. No.137/2019 titled „Retd. SI Rampal Singh & Ors. vs. State & Ors.‟. By way of the said order, the learned Sessions Court had discharged the accused no. 1 in the case, and quashed the summoning order dated 23.04.2019 passed qua him.

2. However, the present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 412 days in filing the present petition.

3. On the issue of condonation of delay, the petitioner, who appeared and argued in person before this Court, contended that the delay in filing the present petition is neither intentional nor deliberate. It was argued that though the impugned order is dated 19.01.2023, the delay in the present case is in fact not 412 days, as stated in the application, but approximately 316 days. He further submitted that the impugned order had been passed in a revision petition and, as per his understanding, there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against an order passed by the learned Sessions Court. It was thus contended that technically there is no delay in filing the present petition and that the application seeking condonation of delay has been filed only by way of abundant caution so as to avoid any technical objection regarding limitation. It was further submitted that even if the limitation applicable to a revision petition is taken to be

60 days, the delay would be about 346 days, and if it is taken to be 90 days, the delay would be about 316 days. The petitioner further submitted that, being a practising advocate, he initially faced difficulty in properly understanding the impugned order and therefore had to undertake detailed legal research in order to comprehend the implications of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court before approaching this Court. It was contended that the time taken in understanding the impugned order and researching the relevant legal position resulted in the delay in filing the present petition. It was also argued that it is a settled principle of law that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than on technical grounds such as limitation, particularly when the petition raises substantial issues regarding the legality and correctness of the impugned order. It is therefore prayed that the delay, if any, be condoned in the interest of justice and the petition be heard on merits.

4. The learned ASC for the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 7 have vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present application. It is argued that no plausible reason has been shown by the petitioner for such inordinate delay of more than one year in filing the present petition. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 was passed in the presence and knowledge of the petitioner, and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates lack of diligence in pursuing the remedy available in law. It is contended that such conduct ref