A delay of 102 days in filing a Criminal Revision Petition was not condoned due to the petitioners' failure to provide adequate reasons, reaffirming the importance of adhering to limitation laws.

ORDER

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 102 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, passed in Cr.M.P.No.5037 of 2024 in CC.No.54 of 2024, dated 13.12.2024.

2.Heard Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

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

a) One Palpandi, who was the President of Chinnamanur Devendra Kula Vellalar Uravinmurai, is the uncle of the defacto complainant. On 03.08.2023, at around 11.00 pm., the petitioners along with other accused persons gathered in front of the said Palpandi's father's house with deadly weapons and by using filthy language threw stones on the said house. Further, the accused persons broke open the defacto complainant's shop and took Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.343 of 2023 by the respondent Police and the respondent police, after completing the investigation, had filed the final report against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.54 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.5037 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, to discharge them from the said Criminal Case.

b) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, vide order dated 13.12.2024, had dismissed the said petition. However, due to poverty, the petitioners were unable to file the present Criminal Revision Petition within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of 102 days. Hence, the impugned order made in Cr.M.P.No.5037 of 2024 in CC.No.54 of 2024, dated 13.12.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition along with the delay condonation petition.

4.From the perusal of the records, it is seen that when the matter came up for hearing on 02.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, Mr.P.Chinnaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for an adjournment and on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case was adjourned. However, today, when the case was called in the revised call, Mr.P.Chinnaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners is not present. Thus, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The order passed on 02.09.2025 is being reproduced herein below:-

Mr.P.Chinnaraja, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays some more time to prepare the case.

2.Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3.Accordingly, as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, adjournment is allowed.

4.Put up this case on 06.10.2025 before the appropriate Bench.

The order passed on 06.10.2025 is also being reproduced herein below:-

Mr.P.Chinnaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he could not get the medical documents to justify the delay in filing the present Criminal Revision Petition. Hence, he submits that he may be given some further time to file medical documents.

2.Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), for the respondent has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3.Accor