Allahabad High Court
RAVENDRA SINGHversusState of UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The application for condonation of delay of 1,941 days is dismissed as no sufficient cause is shown.
Summary
The revisionist, Ravendra Singh, filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court and simultaneously sought condonation of a 1,941‑day delay in filing that revision. He claimed that he only learned of the underlying criminal case and the recovery order against him after returning to his village, prompting him to engage counsel and file the revision. The State, represented by its Additional Government Advocates, opposed the condonation, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivamma (Dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969). The Court examined the revisionist’s affidavit and found the explanation implausible and inconsistent with the order dated 17‑9‑2018 issued by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Auraiya. Applying the legal principles laid down in Shivamma, the Court held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the extensive delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and the revision was merely consigned to the record without any further order.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 1,941 days in filing a criminal revision can be condoned under established jurisprudence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- criminal revision
- condonation of delay
- Section 125 CrPC
- procedural law
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 815 of 2024
Ravendra Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Piyush Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prem Sagar Verma, Sunil Kumar
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
Order on:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of
2024
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not
present.
2. Besides the present revision, an application for condonation of delay in
filing the present revision has also been moved, seeking condonation of
1941 days.
3. Ground taken in the application for condonation of delay was perused
and the revisionist in para 4 of the affidavit has taken the following
grounds in respect of the condonation of delay, which reads as under:-
"Para No. 4:- That thereafter when revisionist came his village he came
to know police personnel search the revisionist with regard to some
criminal case thereafter revisionist met with his counsel and inquire
about the matter then he came into knowledge of proceedings of present
case and revisionist also came to know that in pursuance of present
proceeding a recovery was also issued against the revisionist thereafter
revisionist arranging the expenses for filing the present criminal revision
approached before this Hon'ble Court and filed the present criminal
revision."
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has prayed that, application
for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Learned A.G.A. for the
State has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
CRLRD No. 815 of 2024
2
Shivamma (Dead) Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969.
5. It is needless to say that, every case has to be decided on its own merit,
but the conduct of, the litigant and the grounds raised in the application
for condonation of delay are equally important. Whereas the fact remains
that the revisionist herein was issued notice by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court concerned, thereafter the revisionist appeared in the
court and filed written statement against the application moved by opp.
party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The ground taken by the revisionist
in the application for condonation of delay is not only false but incorrect
on the face of record, which is evident from the order 17.9.2018 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya.
6. Under the circumstances, no plausible explanation has been given or
sufficient cause has been shown by the revisionist seeking condonation of
delay in filing the revision. Moreover, having regard to the law laid down
in the case of Shivamma (Dead) (Supra), no good ground has been made
in filing the application for condonation of delay of 1941 days and the
application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the
delay condonation application is accordingly dismissed and no further
order is required to be passed in the present revision.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is consigned to
record.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
March 16, 2026
Gss
Digitally signed by :-
GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…