Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th May, 2026
DINESH SHASTRI.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Singh, Advocate.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner herein had filed a complaint before the concerned Magisterial Court and also prayed for registration of FIR and investigation by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. His such application, however, did not find favour and he was directed to lead pre-summoning evidence.
3. He led pre-summoning evidence and the learned Trial Court, after perusal of such pre-summoning evidence and after hearing counsel for the complainant, dismissed his complaint on 09.06.2022. The learned Trial Court recorded that there were only oral averments and complainant had not produced any document or any other evidence to substantiate his averments and, therefore, the Court did not find any reason to issue summons to any of the accused as complainant failed to show prima-facie case against any of them.
4. The petitioner took exception to the abovesaid order of dismissal CRL.M.C. 3726/2026 2 dated 09.06.2022 and filed a Revision Petition before the learned Court of Sessions.
5. However, such Revision Petition was filed in the year 2025 and, since there was inordinate delay in lodging the Revisions Petition, he also moved an application seeking condonation of delay.
6. Learned Revisional Court heard arguments with respect to the condonation of delay and declined to condone the delay and, resultantly, the Revision Petition has been dismissed, being barred by limitation.
7. Such order dated 19.11.2025 is under challenge.
8. Admittedly, the period of filing any revision is 90 days and there was inordinate delay.
9. The learned Revisional Court noted down all the facts and came to the conclusion that the delay had not been explained. The relevant paragraphs of the abovesaid order dated 19.11.2025 read as under:-
10. The abovesaid observations would clearly indicate the lax approach of the petitioner.
11. During course of the arguments, on the basis of query, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to place on record copy of the application filed before the learned Revisional Court whereby delay was sought to be condoned.
12. The application is, evidently, a sketchy one, lacking in material particulars. It contains vague assertions, with no supporting material. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-
13. To make things worse, the abovesaid application was supported with an affidavit by his counsel only, which is of no avail. It is not made clear as to why the abovesaid application was not supported with an affidavit of the revisionist himself. CRL.M.C. 3726/2026 4
14. It need not be emphasised that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and it is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay. Power to condone delay is discretionary and may not be exercised even where sufficient cause is claimed, particularly in cases involving inordinate delay, negligence or lack of due diligence. Reference be made to Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA), (2024) 12 SCC 336. In H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that the length of delay is also a relevant factor which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. It also observed that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration and that rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity and that no court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.
15. This Court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2344, while refusing to condone delay of 281 days in filing revision, has observed as under:-
CRL.M.C. 3726/2026 5 carefully balance the competing interests between the parties, and condoning delay in cases where the litigant has failed to act with due diligence would not further the cause of justice, but would instead prolong the lis to the prejudice of the opposite party, who is entitled to repose after the grant of relief in accordance with law.”
16. Finding no merits or substance in the present petition, the same is, hereby, dismissed in limine.
17. The pending application also stands disposed of.
JUDGE MAY 13, 2026/ss/pb