- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of instant Criminal Revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.1.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Aligarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 387 of 2014-Sadiq v. State of U.P., arising out of case Crime No. 232 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C. And section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jawan district Aligarh, whereby the application moved under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, by respondent No. 2 has been allowed.
(2.) The submission has been advanced on behalf of the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 Sadiq Ali (complainant) had full knowledge of the order dated 25.2.2011 whereby the revisionist Shah Alam was declared juvenile and this observation very much finds mention in the order dated 13.1.2015, but the lower Appellate Court erroneously and irregularly, without any basis considered as sufficient cause fact of pendency of the writ petition filed by the revisionist/appellant, condoned the delay for about 4 years, which was not justified. There was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of about 4 years. The order impugned dated 13.1.2015 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 387 of 2015, is liable to be set aside and quashed.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. Submits that the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application moved under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act before the Lower Appellate Court was not controverted specifically by filing any counter-affidavit and the version given on affidavit by the applicant (opposite party No. 2 (Sadiq Ali) was, therefore, considered to be appropriate explanation of the delay which was grounded on pendency of some writ petition/criminal revision before the High Court. The order impugned is justified under the given facts and circumstances of the case.;