Delay in filing appeals can only be condoned if the petitioner provides sufficient cause reflecting bona fides; negligence leads to rejection of applications.

ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Sibi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who accepts notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, no further notice is required to be issued to the respondents.

2.The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 515 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case in Crl.RC(MD)SR.No.29232 of 2025.

3. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Petition and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-

a)There is a dispute between the petitioner’s family and the second respondent in respect of a cart track and on 07.05.2020 at 07.15 am, the second respondent along with his labours went to his grapes garden for harvesting. At that time, the first accused, namely, Santhanakumar, intercepted the second respondent and attacked him and his son, Jeyakumar with iron rod and caused injury and criminally intimidated them with dire consequences. The entire occurrence was committed on the impulse of the Accused Nos.2 to 4. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint and based on the same, an FIR was registered by the first respondent Police in Cr.No.427 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(2) IPC.

b)After registration of the FIR, the first respondent conducted enquiry and during investigation, the first respondent found that there is no nexus for the Accused Nos.2 to 4 and hence, the first respondent deleted the names of Accused Nos.2 to 5 from the FIR and filed a charge sheet against the Accused No.1 alone for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 341 and 506(2) IPC. The same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.540 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

c)In the meantime, the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant filed an objection petition before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District on 01.12.2023 and on the same day, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, had issued summons to the deleted accused, namely, Accused Nos.2 to 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was unable to file the present Criminal Revision Petition within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of 515 days. Hence, the impugned order, dated 01.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.627 of 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition along with the delay condonation petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 515 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is neither deliberate nor wilfull. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition by condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

5. Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, submits that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, prima facie, not legally maintainable. He further contends that the miscellaneous petition seeking condonation of the inordinate delay of 515 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the contentions put forward by the learned Counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.

7. The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 515 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

8. The standard period of limitation for fil