- (1.) C R M No.34225 of 2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) seeking condonation of delay of 332 days in filing the present criminal revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, namely, Shanti Devi has contended that the lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 7.6.2012 had directed that intimation be sent to the petitioner Shanti Devi and her husband Roshan Lal, but no intimation was received by them.
(2.) However, on 31.5.2013, when the petitioner-complainant came to know that respondents No.2 and 3 have already been acquitted by the appellate Court, then she rushed to Chandigarh immediately. In this manner, delay of 332 days has occurred in filing the present revision petition and the same may be condoned. Undisputedly, the FIR No.121 dated 25.9.2001 under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Satbir Singh and Rajesh at Police Station, Kosli on the complaint of petitioner Shanti Devi. She has appeared before the trial Court as PW2 and her husband, namely, Roshan Lal appeared in the witness box as PW8. Moreover, it is a conceded fact that both the parties belong to the same village i.e. Gujjarwas. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings pending against respondents No.2 and 3 in the appellate Court. The delay of 332 days in filing the present revision petition is inordinate one and the petitioner has not been able to sufficiently explain the same. Thus, the present application does not satisfy the parameters of law as laid down under Section 5 of the Act.
(3.) In these circumstances, there is no merit in the present application and the same is, resultantly, dismissed. Main Case Though after dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Act, the present petition is not required to be discussed elaborately, but still for just and fair decision of the matter, the revision petition is being decided on merits as well. Petitioner Shanti Devi has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 7.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby the appeal filed by respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Satbir Singh and Rajesh was partly accepted.;