A Sessions Judge rejected delay condonation and consequently a revision against an Executive Magistrate’s order under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, treating the applicants as inconsistent about when they learned of it.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
Reading the application closely, the High Court found that the earlier date referred to the challenged order, with a typographical mistake, rather than an admission of knowledge; the pleaded knowledge date was 3 June 2024. It set aside the rejection and remanded the delay application for a fresh merits decision after hearing both sides. Delay was not itself condoned. Existing interim protection continued until the directed appearance date, after which the Sessions Judge could extend, modify or vacate it. The ruling cautions against deciding limitation on a misread pleading.
Case — Satpal & Ors. v. Vidhya Bushan & Anr. · CRM(M) No. 1146/2025 · 2026-10-14 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.