Ajay Kumar Pandey vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has set aside the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 310 of 2024 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case against the opposite party No.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 384, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order against the said opposite party No.2 to 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the said Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2024 was filed after a delay and to condone the delay, a separate petition was filed. It is next submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro by the order no.2 of the said criminal revision, has observed that the Criminal Revision is barred by time and the matter of limitation will be taken up at the time of final hearing of the Criminal Revision. It is then submitted that in the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2024, no order has been passed regarding the condonation of delay, if any, made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur reported in 2008 Supreme (SC) 1538, paragraph No.27 of which reads as under:-

and submits that since the limitation goes to the root of the matter without considering the limitation, a court of an Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to decide inter alia an application. Hence, it is lastly submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 4 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that it is deemed that the delay has been condoned. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that if inter alia a Criminal Revision is barred by limitation, the Court has no authority to entertain the same unless the delay is condoned by an express order.

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has failed to consider that the Criminal Revision was barred by limitation and without considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro having exercised the power of Revision; hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the same be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2024, is quashed and set aside.

The case is remitted to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro to first consider the matter of condonation of delay. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding merit of the case.

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.