The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a recent order, dismissed a petition seeking to condone a significant delay of 342 days in filing a criminal revision petition. Justice Shamim Ahmed, presiding over the case of K. Krishnasamy Pandian Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, held that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or “sufficient cause” for the inordinate delay, terming his approach as one of “complete careless and reckless long delay.”
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a land dispute between the petitioner, K. Krishnasamy Pandian, and another party, Muthumari and her husband Kasirajan. The petitioner alleged that following the dispute, the opposing party lodged a false complaint against him and his family. He claimed that a survey conducted on February 2, 2024, revealed that the accused had encroached upon four feet of his land.
Mr. Pandian had filed a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, on May 31, 2023, alleging criminal intimidation, use of abusive language, and land encroachment. When no First Information Report (FIR) was registered, he filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, seeking a direction for the police to register an FIR.
However, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed this petition (Cr.M.P. No. 3975 of 2024) on May 30, 2024, concluding that the petitioner was “abusing the process of law to recriminate the proposed accused.” Aggrieved by this dismissal, Mr. Pandian sought to file a criminal revision petition before the High Court but missed the statutory limitation period, resulting in a delay of 342 days.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by counsel Mr. M. Chokkusamy Balasubramaniam, sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The sole reason cited for the delay was the petitioner’s health. It was submitted that he is a cardiac patient who had undergone angioplasty and was under continuous medical treatment. The petitioner claimed he was unable to file the revision petition within the stipulated time due to his medical condition.
Opposing the plea, Mr. M. Karunanithi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State, argued that the miscellaneous petition was prima facie not legally maintainable and that the inordinate delay warranted its dismissal.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Shamim Ahmed began the analysis by noting that the standard limitation period for filing a criminal revision is 90 days, as per Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While Section 5 of the Act empowers the court to condone delays, it requires the petitioner to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for not acting within the prescribed time.
The Court found the petitioner’s explanation wanting. It observed, “After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 342 days in filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, nor are there any medical documents annexed in support of the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay.”
The judgment delved into the legal principles governing the condonation of delay, referencing several landmark Supreme Court decisions. It cited Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, which advocates for a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. However, it also invoked P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court held that the “law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour.”
The Court emphasized that while rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights, they are founded on public policy to prevent dilatory tactics and give finality to litigation. It quoted from Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, stating, “Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and ‘do not slumber over their rights.'”
Further, the Court referred to Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, which clarified that while a justice-oriented approach is needed, “no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence.” The Supreme Court in that case had observed, “If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.”
Applying these principles, Justice Ahmed concluded that the petitioner’s actions did not warrant the exercise of judicial discretion. The Court stated, “On the contrary, I find that here is a case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of the Petitioner, which has remain virtually unexplained at all.”
Final Decision
Finding the petition for condonation of delay to be “baseless,” the Court rejected it. “In the result, in the light of the above said observations and discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 342 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is baseless and the same is hereby rejected,” the order concluded, thereby dismissing the petition as devoid of merits.
