Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Kishori Lal – Appellant
Versus
Surender Kumar – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1047 of 2025 | Cr. Revision Filing No.3134 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Limitation - Sufficient Cause - Due Diligence - A party cannot take advantage of their own wrong or negligence. Failure to enquire about the status of a case for several months without a valid reason does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. (Para 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revision could be condoned on the ground that the summons served on the applicant's father was not communicated to the applicant.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anu Tuli
For the Respondents: Preetika Thakur
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for condonation of delay based on non-communication of hearing date by father. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. validity of service of summons upon adult male family member as personal service. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. failure to establish sufficient cause for delay due to lack of due diligence. (Para 10) |
| 4. inapplicability of cited case laws regarding interpretation of sections 203 and 249 cr.p.c. (Para 11) |
| 5. dismissal of delay application and subsequent revision petition as barred by limitation. (Para 13) |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?, (1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.) No
The present application has been filed for condonation of 130 days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the matter was decided on 12.12.2024 in the absence of the applicant/petitioner. The applicant was never informed about the date of the hearing. The Court had issued the summons, which was received by the applicant’s father, but he failed to communicate the date of the hearing to the applicant. The applicant did not appear before the Court, and his complaint was
dismissed for non-prosecution. The complainant could not visit the Court or contact his counsel during the winter vacation and could not learn about the dismissal of the complaint. The complainant had enquired from his counsel about the complaint in March 2025, and he was told that the complaint was dismissed in default on 12.12.2024. The applicant applied for a copy of the order and approached the learned counsel. There is a delay in filing the revision, which is due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, the application.
2. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the applicant was duly served and was aware of the proceedings. The applicant was duty-bound to act with due diligence and establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision. He has failed to disclose any reason for the condonation of the delay. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.
3. I have heard Ms Anu Tuli, learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner and Ms Preetika Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.
4. Ms Anu Tuli, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant, submitted that the notice was served on the applicant’s father, but he failed to communicate the date of the hearing to the applicant. The applicant could not appear before the Court, and the Court dismissed the complaint in default; hence, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. She relied upon the judgments in Amit Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024:AHC LKO:24383 and Jaswant Singh vs. Anil Kumar 2024:PHHC:162587 in support of her submission.
5. Ms Preetika Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the applicant was duly served, but he failed to appear before the Court. The Court was justified in dismissing the complaint in the absence of the complainant. The applicant has failed to show any reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Court. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The record shows that the notice was issued to the applicant/petitioner for his appearance before the Court on 12.12.2024. The notice was duly served upon the applicant’s father, and he made an endorsement to this effect on the summons. Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) provides that where the person summoned cannot be found despite the exercise of due diligence, the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates with some adult male member of the family residing with him. It is not disputed that the summons was served upon the applicant’s father, who was residing with the applicant. Therefore, the summons was served as per the law.
8. It was su
