( 2025:HHC:22382 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1550 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025. Hem Raj ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s. Happy Thakur & Hemant Thakur, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Cr. MP No.1550 of 2025 The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of 246 days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that there is a delay of 246 days in filing the revision. The applicant/petitioner sought legal opinion about the ideal course of action to be taken in the present case, and thereafter applied for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:22382 ) record for filing the revision, which led to the delay. Hence, the application. 2. I have heard M/s. Happy Thakur & Hemant Thakur, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 3. Mr. Happy Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the applicant/petitioner could not file the revision before this Court within time, as he was seeking legal opinion for further course of action in the present case. The applicant/petitioner has a good case on merit; therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 4. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the applicant/petitioner has failed to assign any reason for the condonation of delay. The applicant/petitioner does not have any case on merit; therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 3 ( 2025:HHC:22382 ) 6. The applicant has not assigned any reason in the application for the condonation of delay. He only stated that he sought legal opinion regarding the ideal course of action to be taken in the present case. The order was passed on 25.10.2024, in the presence of learned counsel representing the applicant/petitioner, and he could have sought the opinion from the learned counsel on that very day itself. There is nothing on record to show as to why he kept waiting for the expiry of the limitation period, and 246 days to seek the legal opinion. Thus, the reason disclosed in the application is not sufficient to condone the delay. 7. Even on merits, the applicant had filed the present application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC for registration of the FIR with the allegation that he had appeared for the post of “Gram Vidya Upasak” before the Selection Committee. Fewer marks were awarded to him. The Selection Committee left one column blank, and there was tampering of the marks allotted to the petitioner. Assuming all these allegations to be correct, they do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It was held by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 245 of 2019, titled Hans Raj & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [2025:HHC:21080], that there is a distinction between a document, whose contents are false and the false documents as defined in Section 464 of IPC. There is no averment in the application that the tampering 4 ( 2025:HHC:22382 ) in the record was made by some person other than the Members of the Committee, and the photocopy (Annexure - 8) shows the initial. Therefore, in these circumstances, no forgery is made out even on merits. 8. Consequently, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. CRRST No.5435 of 2025 In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the proposed criminal revision is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th July, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)