Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/49/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 49 of 2010
=========================================================
DUNGARMAL
RAMAJI SONI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 10 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GULSHAN N NASHA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
11.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 20/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petition
is directed against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Deesa, by which the learned Judge refused
to condone the delay in filing Criminal Revision Application.
2. Shortly
stated facts are as follows.
Petitioner
is original complainant. He had filed complaint No.891/2002 before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa. He, however,
did not remain present for considerable period of time after the
learned Judge issued process. Allegation in the complaint were for
offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) read with 114 IPC.
Eventually,
the learned Magistrate by an order dated 19.12.2007 dismissed the
complaint for default noting that complainant is not remaining
present and no steps are taken for paying the process fee. The
complaint is dismissed for default again.
This
order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court.
There was delay in filing the Revision Application. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge examined all aspects of the matter and
found that the petitioner was negligent. No case for condonation of
delay was made out.
3. From
the facts on record, it clearly emerges that after the Court issued
process on 09.05.2002, petitioner did not pay process fee for years
together. At one stage, the complaint was dismissed for default.
Same was, however, later on restored. Petitioner sought permission
to change his advocate, which was granted. He, however, did not
engaged another advocate. For more than 5 years, process fee was not
paid. Eventually, the Magistrate was compelled to dismiss the
complaint for default second time. This order also came to be
challenged by the petitioner after delay.
4. Looking
to the lethargy of the petitioner in pursuing his complaint, no case
for interference is made out. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
menon
Top