Relying on landmark judgment here and here, Single judge bench of Gujarat High Court condoned the delay of 3330 days, considering the lapse was on the part of the advocate who did not file the Written Statement in the prescribed time.
Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022Tag: Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 – Extension of prescribed period in certain cases
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 2010
A division bench of Apex Court held as follows with respect to granting exemption from limitation under Limitation Act 1963,
From Para 7,
7. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that in the instant case a sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the High Court erred in declining to condone the same. It is true that even upon showing a sufficient cause, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right, yet it is trite that in construing sufficient cause, the Courts generally follow a liberal approach particularly when no negligence, inaction or mala fides can be imputed to the party.
From Para 11,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors Vs Subrata Borah Chowlek and Anr on 12 Nov 201011.It is manifest that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court, and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is dependant on the actions of its officials, who often do not have any personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such cases.
Citations : [2010 SCC 14 419], [2011 AIR SC 0 269], [2011 LW 1 385], [2011 KCCR SC SN 1 44], [2011 MLJ 1 1010], [2011 LLN 2 43], [2011 CUTLT SUPPL 826], [2010 AIOL 787], [2010 ELT SC 262 3], [2010 SCALE 12 209], [2011 SCC L&S 2 581], [2012 SCC CIV 1 640], [2011 AIC 97 34], [2011 ALR 84 462], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 446], [2011 FLR 130 324], [2011 AIR SCW 269], [2011 JT SC 1 535], [2011 CAL LT 2 91]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29521266/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee4e4b01497114150a9
Malhan and 17 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 07 Feb 2022
A division bench of Allahabad High Court held that, Once the written statement contains an admission in favor of the plaintiff, the amendment of such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. In the present case the question now is whether the admission made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff can be withdrawn and the answer in the language of the apex court is ‘not permissible’.
From Para 4,
4. We have heard Sri Madan Mohan Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the review applicants, and requested him to explain the delay in filing the review application, to which he gave a strange reply that he advised his clients that they may take a chance by filing this review application after a period of six years. We are pained to note that an advocate should not give such an advise when there is no error apparent on the face of record nor was there any other reason that why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.
From Para 7,
Malhan and 17 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 07 Feb 20227. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is
imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012
Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012
Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b
Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April 1993
Supreme Court held that,
6. At times it has come to our notice that many courts are treating the provisions of Section 468 and Section 473 of the Code as provisions parallel to the periods of limitation provided in the Limitation Act and the requirement of satisfying the court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of that Act. There is a basic difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code. For exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the appellant or the applicant to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, whereas Section 473 enjoins a duty on the court to examine not only whether such delay has been explained but as to whether it is the requirement of the justice to condone or ignore such delay. As such, whenever the bar of Section 468 is applicable, the court has to apply its mind on the question, whether it is necessary to condone such delay in the interests of justice. While examining the question as to whether it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice, the Court has to take note of the nature of offence, the class to which the victim belongs, including the background of the victim. If the power under section 473 of the code is to be exercised in the interests of justice, then while considering the grievance by a lady, of torture, cruelty and inhuman treatment, by the husband and the relatives of the husband, the interest of justice requires a deeper examination of such grievances, instead of applying the rule of limitation and saying that with lapse of time the cause of action itself has come to an end. The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim : vigilantibus, et non, dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating to cruelty against women.
7. It is true that the object of introducing Section 468 was to put a bar of limitation on prosecutions and to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as it was thought proper that after a long lapse of time, launching of prosecution may be vexatious, because by that time even the evidence may disappear. This aspect has been mentioned in the statement and object, for introducing a period of limitation, as well as by this Court in the case of State Of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh 1981 3 SCC 34. But, that consideration cannot be extended to matrimonial offences, where the allegations are of cruelty, torture and assault by the husband or other members of the family to the complainant. It is a matter of common experience that victim is subjected to such cruelty repeatedly and it is more or less like a continuing offence. It is only as a last resort that a wife openly comes before a court to unfold and relate the day-to-day torture and cruelty faced by her, inside the house, which many of such victims do not like to be made public. As such, courts while considering the question of limitation for an offence under Section 498-A i.e subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband, should judge that question, in the light of section 473 of the code, which requires the Court, not only to examine as to whether the delay has been properly explained, but as to whether “it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice”.
Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April 1993
Citations: [1993 (2) BLJR 875], [1993 (2) Crimes 275 SC], [I (1994) DMC 172 SC], [JT 1993 (4) SC 17], [1993 (2) SCALE 570], [(1993) 3 SCC 4]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/849288/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8ce4b014971140f1d2
Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)
Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.
Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.
There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).
Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)
Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.
Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘.
Note3: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.
No Jurisdiction Judgments
- Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
- Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
- Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
- Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
- Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
- Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
- Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
- Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
- Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
- G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
- Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
- Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
- Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases)
Vague and General Allegations
- MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
- Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
- B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
- Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
- Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
- Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
- Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
- Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
- Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
- Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
- Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
- Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
- Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
- Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)
Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR
- R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
- Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
- State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
- Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
- State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
- Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
- V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
- State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
- Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
- Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
- Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
- Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
- Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
- Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
- Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
- U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
- Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
- Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
- Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
- Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
- S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
- Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
- Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
- Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
- State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
- Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
- Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
- Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
- Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
- Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
- Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
- Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
- Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
- K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
- K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
- Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]
Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases
- State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
- Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
- Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
- State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
- MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
- Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
- Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
- Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [SC: guidelines to/not to quash/discharge]
- Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
- State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
- Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
- Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022 [MPHC: 498A IPC covers invalid marriages also]
Material evidence required that supports allegations
- R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
- Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
- Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
- CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
- Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
- Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
- M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
- Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
- Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
- Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
- Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
- Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
- M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]
Approaching Court with unclean hands
- All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.
Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.
- All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.
Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.
- All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
