Allowing Petition To Remain Under Objections For Months And Then Claiming Benefit Of Earlier Filing Date 'Cannot Be Countenanced': Delhi High Court
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 281-day delay in filing a criminal revision petition, holding that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of an earlier filing date when a petition has been allowed to remain under objections for months and subsequently withdrawn on technical grounds. The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a complainant challenging a Sessions Court order that had set aside the summoning of two accused persons in a forgery case. Finding that the petitioner had failed to offer a cogent or satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay and had not pursued the matter with due diligence at any stage, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of condonation, resulting in the dismissal of the revision petition as well.
A complainant filed a criminal complaint before a Magistrate court, leading to the summoning of two accused persons for offences under Sections 465, 466, 469, 471, and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to forgery and fabrication of documents.
The accused persons challenged the summoning order before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, who set it aside. The complainant, aggrieved by this order, sought to challenge it before the Delhi High Court by filing a revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 281 days under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The complainant contended the delay arose from typographical errors in earlier petitions, court vacations, change of counsel, missing documents, and time taken to obtain certified copies. The respondents opposed the application, submitting that the complainant had been duly served through her own registered email address throughout the proceedings, supported by an affidavit of service and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that her conduct reflected consistent lack of diligence.
On the petitioner's conduct before the courts below, the Court recorded that the petitioner had taken a plea before the District and Sessions Judge that she required legal assistance and could not effectively contest proceedings without a counsel. The Court noted that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear on dates when the matter was listed for hearing. It observed that on 06.12.2024, when the matter came up before the learned ACJM, the petitioner stated that she was unaware of the pendency of the revision proceedings, an assertion that was contradicted by the accused's counsel, who placed copies of the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge on record.
On the question of service, the Court recorded that the email address used for service was the same address that had been consistently reflected on the trial court record throughout the proceedings, furnished by the petitioner herself. It further noted that the same email address was reflected in a reply submitted by OLA CABS to the Investigating Officer, establishing that the said address was consistently available and in use by the petitioner.
On the petitioner's first petition, the Court observed: "To take a contrary view would amount to accepting that a litigant can file a petition on a particular date, allow it to remain under objections for months together, and thereafter claim the benefit of the earlier date of filing, which cannot be countenanced." It further recorded that "by the time the first petition was withdrawn on 27.05.2025, more than five months had already elapsed from the passing of the impugned order" and that "no explanation has been furnished as to why such basic defects could not have been rectified promptly."
On the cumulative delay, the Court observed: "What thus emerges from the record is that there is no explanation as to why, even after the impugned order was passed on 19.12.2024, no petition was filed till 19.03.2025. There is also no satisfactory explanation as to why the objections in the first petition were not cleared for nearly two months."
The Court further recorded: "It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has neither pursued the matter with urgency nor demonstrated due diligence at any stage. The delay of 281 days sought to be condoned is not supported by a cogent or satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay."
On the governing legal principles, the Court stated, drawing from the Supreme Court's decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA): "Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence."
Citing H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, the Court recorded: "Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation."
On the balancing of rights, the Court observed: "The concept of a fair trial does not operate in isolation or only in favour of one party. Fairness in the administration of justice has to extend to all the stakeholders in the process, and while the complainant is entitled to avail remedies in accordance with law, the accused is also equally entitled to certainty and finality in proceedings."
The Court directed: "Consequently, the present application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the accompanying revision petition is also dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shahrukh Alam, Advocate; Mr. Shantanu Singh, Advocate; Mr. Anupam Kirti, Advocate; Mr. Akshat Chaitanya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Ms. Amisha Dahiya, Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Advocate; Mr. Rose Verma, Advocate; Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate; Mr. Jugal Wadhwa, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Goel, Advocate; Ms. Priyal Jain, Advocate
Case Title: Ms. X v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1381
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 482/2025 in CRL.M.A. 35118/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
