RAMPYARE RAMNANAND UPADHYAY (SINCE DECESED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR RAMAKANT RAMPYARE UPADHYAYversusSHRADDHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY AND ORS LTD AND ORS

                                                                               [email protected]




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       Digitally
                              CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 551 OF 2022
       signed by

VINA
       VINA
       ARVIND
                                                   IN
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
       2026.10.09
                                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ALP) NO.138 OF 2017
       18:42:43
       +0530

                    Rampyare Ramanand Upadhyay
                    since deceased through Lrs.
                    Ramakant Rampyare Upadhyay                                … Applicant

                    In the matter between
                    Rampyare Ramanand Upadhyay                        … Applicant
                            Versus
                    Shraddha Co-operative Society Ltd and ors.        … Respondents
                                                     ***
                    Mr. Yashodhan V. Divekar a/w Mr. Shubham Jadhav i/b. Divekar &
                    Co. for the Applicant.
                    Mr. Vatsal Thakkar i/b. Mr. Amol Patankar for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3
                    and 6.
                    Mr. P. P. Chauhan i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
                    Ms. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                     ***
                                                        CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                                DATE      : 09 OCTOBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the application
                    and      the   Affidavit-in-Reply   filed       by   Respondent     No.1       dated
                    01.10.2026, which is taken on record.

                    2.       By this Application, son of the original complainant seeks
                    permission to delete the name of the deceased Applicant and to add
                    his name to continue prosecuting the Leave application.

                    3.       It is not disputed that the Applicant is the son of the original


                    Vina Khadpe                                 1
                                                    [email protected]




complainant, who had filed complaint against the Respondents for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 425, 447 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). By
order dated 12.01.2015, the concerned Magistrate acquitted the
Respondents.

4.     The original complainant filed the above Leave Application
seeking leave to file appeal against the said order of acquittal. It is
not disputed that the leave application filed by the original
complainant was filed on 09.04.2015 and the delay caused in filing
the said Application was condoned. During the pendency of the Leave
Application, the original complainant died on 23.05.2018. Thereafter,
by order dated 15.12.2021, this Court granted last chance and time
of six weeks was granted to enable the concerned party to take steps
for bringing the legal heirs of complainant on record. Thereafter, the
present Application is filed on 23.12.2021.

5.     Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is no
specific period of limitation provided for such application under
criminal law and even if the residuary clause under Limitation Act of
three years is applied, the Application would be within time. Relying
on the averments made in the Application, he submitted that in the
interregnum, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the period of limitation
was suspended and the Application was filed within the period of six
weeks granted by this Court. He relied upon Chand Devi Daga and
ors Vs. Manju K. Humatani and ors [(2018) 1 SCC 71] in support of
his case that no period of limitation is provided for bringing the legal
representative of the complainant on record.

Vina Khadpe                           2
                                                    [email protected]




6.     On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2,
3 and 6, relying upon the Affidavit-in-Reply, contended that the delay
had not been properly explained. He submitted that the Applicant
himself was a witness for complainant and therefore, he can not
claim that he had no knowledge of the legal proceedings. He further
submitted that there are other legal heirs who have not come
forward. He relied on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs, Ramumar
Choudhary [2024 DGLS(SC) 1226], and submitted that, the entire
period of delay must be properly explained and that the Court is
required to consider what came in the way of a party from filing the
necessary proceedings between the first day and last day of
limitation.

7.     I have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute
about proposition of law laid down in Ramumar Choudhary (supra).
However, due to very nature of prayer for delay condonation, the
consideration depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

8.     From the dates explained above, it is clear that within three
years from the date of death of the complainant, COVID-19 pandemic
commenced in March 2020 and the period of limitation was
suspended from 15/3/2020 to 28/2/2022 by Order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dt. 10/1/22 in Misc. Application No. 21/22 in Misc.
Application No. 665/21in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.
It is also clear for the above dates that, in the interregnum, under the
order of this Court dated 15.12.2021, six weeks time was granted,
and the Application was filed in December 2021 i.e. before February,
2022. The Applicant has pleaded the reason of COVID-19 pandemic

Vina Khadpe                           3
                                                     [email protected]




in paragraph no. 4 of the Application.

9.      It is true that the Applicant was a witness in support of the
complainant and therefore, he was aware of the legal proceedings.
However, since no specific period of limitation is shown to be
applicable for the case in hand, assuming that residuary clause under
Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies, the Application is filed
within time considering suspension of limitation during the Corona
pandemic.

10.     So far as the submission that ‘there are other legal heirs of the
complainant but only complainant’s son has come forward’ is
concerned, the said position is accepted even by the Applicant that
he is one of the legal heirs and he is only representing the
Complainant for prosecuting the complaint.

11.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, sufficient cause is made out. Interim Application is
allowed. Delay, if any, is condoned. The Applicant is permitted to
bring himself on record as legal representative of the deceased
complainant. Amendment to be carried out within a period of one
week.

12.     Place the Leave Application on 23.10.2026 for ‘disposal’ after
urgent / circulated matters.

13.     Interim Application is disposed of in above terms.



                                               (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Vina Khadpe                            4