##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13155

1 MCRC-60675-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60675 of 2025

NEELAMANI SHAH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manisha Singh - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06/10/2025

passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, district Raisen,

whereby an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of approximately three years in challenging the order dated

29/06/2022 passed in RCT No.316/2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Begumganj, district Raisen, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an FIR under Section

188 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him pursuant to a complaint

dated 08/11/2018 alleging violation of a promulgated order under Section 144 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge-sheet in the matter was filed on

12/11/2018. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Begumganj, vide order dated 29/06/2022 recorded a finding that the petitioner was

not entitled to discharge from the offence punishable under Section 188 of the

Indian Penal Code and directed that the case be consigned to Record Room. On

behalf of the petitioner, it has also been argued that in July 2025 when the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: REENA

HIMANSHU SHARMA

Signing time: 17-02-2026

11:50:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13155

2 MCRC-60675-2025

petitioner applied for issuance of a passport, during the course of verification of

his criminal antecedents, the aforesaid ambiguity came into light. Consequently,

the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision challenging the order dated

29/06/2022. The revision petition was duly accompanied by an application

seeking condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that sufficient cause has been

shown for condonation of the delay in filing the present revision petition. It was

also contended that order dated 29/06/2022 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class being bad in law is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the

revision petition challenging the said order deserves to be allowed. It was further

urged that the delay occasioned in filing of revision be condoned in the interest of

justice. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned order has resulted into

miscarriage of justice. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P. No. 332 of 2020 (Dr. Santosh

Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh).

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned

order and submitted that delay of each day is required to be satisfactorily

explained. It is further contended that no sufficient cause has been shown for

condonation of the delay. No attempt has been made to demonstrate compliance of

the provisions of Limitation Act. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for

rejection of the petition with costs.

5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the

material available on record as well as the case law applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

6. In the case of P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & another, (1997) 7

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: REENA

HIMANSHU SHARMA

Signing time: 17-02-2026

11:50:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13155

3 MCRC-60675-2025

SCC 556, while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in

the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking

condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It also observed that

the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied

with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no po