The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the grounds of inordinate delay and laches, observing that a practising advocate cannot cite the need for “legal research” or difficulty in understanding a judicial order as “sufficient cause” to justify a delay of over a year.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that while no specific limitation period is prescribed for invoking the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such petitions must be filed within a reasonable period, typically aligning with the 90-day period applicable to revision petitions.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar Gola, moved the High Court seeking to set aside an order dated January 19, 2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North, Rohini Courts. In the impugned order, the Sessions Court had discharged the primary accused in a criminal revision case and quashed the summoning order dated April 23, 2019, that had been passed against him.
Accompanying the main petition (CRL.M.C. 1913/2024) was an application (CRL.M.A. 17529/2024) seeking the condonation of a 412-day delay in filing the challenge.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the delay was not intentional. He contended that technically there is no prescribed period of limitation for Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitions, and the application was filed as a matter of “abundant caution.”
Explaining the delay, Gola stated that as a practising advocate, he initially faced difficulty in “properly understanding the impugned order” and had to “undertake detailed legal research in order to comprehend the implications” before approaching the High Court. He argued that matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities like limitation.
Conversely, the State’s counsel and the Senior Counsel for the private respondents vehemently opposed the plea. They argued that the petitioner showed a “lack of diligence” and “negligence.” They contended that the petitioner’s excuse regarding his inability to understand the order—despite being a lawyer—was devoid of merit.
Court’s Analysis
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Mool Chandra v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) and State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School (2026), emphasizing that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion and requires “sufficient cause” rather than just any explanation.
Regarding the petitioner’s status as a lawyer, Justice Sharma observed:
“Not being able to understand a judicial order by a self represented litigant, who wants to challenge the order before a higher Court or by a counsel who may receive a brief on behalf of a client cannot be treated as a ground to justify an inordinate delay in availing the remedy.”
The Court further noted that if such explanations were accepted, the requirement of “sufficient cause” would become meaningless. The Bench remarked:
“The record does not indicate that the petitioner exercised due diligence or reasonable promptitude… every litigant or lawyer will take this ground that he was unable to understand the judicial order and remained busy in understanding the order and conducting legal research for more than one year.”
Addressing the limitation period for Section 482, the Court cited Londhe Prakash Bhagwan v. Dattatraya Eknath Mane (2013) and the Delhi High Court’s own coordinate bench rulings in Rajesh Chetwal v. State (2011) and Vipin Kr. Gupta v. Sarvesh Mahajan (2019). The Court reiterated that a period of 90 days is generally treated as a “reasonable time” for filing such applications, mirroring the limitation for revision petitions.
Decision
The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to pass the test of “constituting sufficient cause” for the delay of more than a year.
“The explanation offered does not satisfactorily account for the prolonged delay in filing the petition,” the Court stated. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the main petition as being barred by delay and laches.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ajit Kumar Gola vs. State (GNCTD) and Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1913/2024 & CRL.M.A. 17529/2024
- bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Date: April 04, 2026
