Devi vs State of U.P.and Another

U.S. Tripathi, J.—This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay in filing revision mainly on the ground that one Ram Kishan lodged a report on 20111985 at 7.15 a.m. at P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Mathura, under Sections 147,148,307 and 3021.P.C. regarding an incident which took place on the same date at about 6.00 a.m. in village Damodar Pura. On the basis of above report a case at crime No. 194 of 1985 was registered. Regarding same incident one Sita Ram also lodged a report at 8.15 a.m. on same day, on the basis of which a case at crime No. 195A of 1985 was registered. Under the order of the Chief Minister of U.P. the case was investigated by CBCID and the after investigation final report was submitted on 681987. The above final report was placed before C.J.M., Mathura, who issued notice to the complainant. The complainant appeared and filed protest petition. The learned C.J.M. rejected the protest petition and accepted final report by his order dated 3061987.

Aggrieved with the above order the complainant preferred revision in this Court bearing Criminal Revision No. 1069 of 1987. Subsequently, another Revision NO 1559 of 1987 was also filed. Suppressing the fact that revision against the acceptance of the final report was pending the complainant filed a complaint before the CJ.M. Mathura. Who fixed date for statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C The complainant died and his statement under Section 200 Cr. PC. could not be recorded. Other witnesses were examined under Section 292 Cr. PC. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement of the witnesses took cognizance and issued summon against the applicant, which was without jurisdiction and against the provisions of Section 202 Cr. P.C. The applicant had no knowledge of the filing of the complaint and issuance of summons against him. The applicant came to know about the complaint only on 582000 when the police arrested coaccused Ram Karan, Raj Veer and Sumery. Therefore, the delay in filing revision is to be condoned.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the affidavit in support of application. The copy of order sheet as well as the summoning order (Anncxure6 to the application) show that the applicant and other accused were summoned by the C.J.M under Sections 147,148 and 30. vide order dated 24041989. The contention of the applicant was that he had no knowledge of pendency of the complaint or the summoning order before 582000 when the police arrested some of the accused. The applicant has not filed copy of uptodate order sheet and it is not known whether the summons were served on him or not and what was the report of process server on the summons. On the own showing of the applicant the police apprehended some of the accused of the case which shows that nonbailable warrants were issued against them. Nonbailable warrants would have been issued if the applicant and other accused did not appear despite of service of summons or they were evading service of summons. Moreover, another case crime No. 194A of 1985 was also registered and the applicant has not disclosed whether final report or chargesheet was filed in the said case. Thus, show that applicant has concealed the facts and his contention that he has no knowledge of the order dated 2141989 against which the revision has been preferred till 582000 is not acceptable. There appears no sufficient ground to condoned the delay of 4016days i.e. near about 11 years.

The applicant is, therefore, accordingly rejected. Application rejected.