Suresh Kumar Suryawanshi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on IA. No. 6721/2014, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision as well as for admission.

The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 20.6.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katni, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 452, 294, 323, 506 (Part 2) of I.P.C. were framed.

The prosecution''s case in short is that the respondent No. 2 has moved a criminal complaint against the applicants which was registered vide order dated 21.0.2012 by the learned JMFC, Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni. Since the counter case was triable by the Special Court therefore, a complaint registered against the applicants was also committed to the Special Court and thereafter, the Special Court framed the charges against the applicants vide the impugned order.

The present revision is filed with delay of 193 days. No specific ground is given by the applicants as to why such delay was caused. It is pleaded by the applicants that due to paucity of the funds, such revision could not be filed. Such type of ground cannot be accepted. Everywhere, Office of the Legal Services Authority is available and if the applicants could not file the present revision due to paucity of fund and they were from the scheduled caste and they could get the legal aid from the Legal Services Authority at Katni or Jabalpur. The applicant No. 1 is a Government servant and it was for him to give the details as to how he could collect the fund and to file the present revision with delay of 193 days whereas, it would be apparent that the applicants have engaged their counsel before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the ground for condonation of delay is neither satisfactory nor appropriate.

Delay could be condoned with a liberal attitude, if there was any merit in the case. The applicants did not challenge the order of the registration of the complaint passed by the learned JMFC on 21.9.2012. If the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 was not registered by the concerned Police then he was competent to move a criminal complaint. If the criminal complaints and the statements of the witnesses u/s 200 and 202 of the Cr. P.C. are considered then prima facie the offence under Sections 452, 294, 323 and 506 (Part II) of I.P.C. shall be constituted against the applicants. At the time of framing of the charges, no appreciation of evidence can be done and therefore, testimony of the various witnesses could not be disbelieved. If the applicants had filed an FIR and counter case is pending then by existence of that counter case, it cannot be said the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 was of no basis. There are provisions so that counter case may be tried simultaneously. Under such circumstance, if the delay in filing the present revision is condoned with the liberal attitude then still the revision filed by the applicants shall not succeed. Under such circumstances, the delay of 193 days cannot be condoned, without any proper satisfactory grounds. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, IA. No. 6721/2014 cannot be accepted. Hence it is hereby dismissed.

Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicants Suresh Kumar Suryasanshi and Smt. Tirasiya Bai is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.