Shiv Raj Singh and another vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital and others

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that a criminal complaint case no.1431 of 1991 (New No.355/2002) was initiated at the instance of Divisional Forest Officer, Nainital against Sri Mahendra Singh. Later on, while the case was under trial before the Magistrate, it appeared that the names of Shivraj Singh and Bhagwan Singh were indicated in the complaint in the column of witnesses while they were the accused in the case. So, on the application moved by the prosecution on 2.11.2002, the names of present petitioners were included in the array of accused persons along with the others and accordingly, the mistake committed by the ministerial staff in drafting the complaint was rectified. After arraying the accused, the process to ensure their attendance was issued on 2.11.2002 itself, including the process of Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. This order of learned Magistrate dated 2.11.2002 was under challenge by filing a petition no.1215 of 2002 (M/S), wherein the stay order was granted by this Court while admitting the petition. Thereafter, the petition was listed up for hearing on many dates. On the fatal day, i.e. on 5.9.2007, it was listed up for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners even at the revised call, so the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and the interim stay order dated 10.12.2002 was vacated.

Now, after a delay of 1486 days, this restoration application has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and having perused all the grounds of delay condonation application, is of the view that there is an inordinate delay in filing the restoration application, for which there is no reasonable day-to-day explanation offered by the applicants. Otherwise also, on merits, the Court is of the view that the complaint, pending in the court below, is of 1991. The Court is not inclined to hamper the course of trial henceforth. Hence, in both ways, the delay condonation application and the restoration application are rejected while the writ petition is dismissed on merits.