HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7932 of 2019 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Applicant is a proposed accused in a complaint filed by complainant- opposite party no.2, who is aggrieved against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No.21, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 374 of 2018, whereby delay in filing the revision petition by complainant-opposite party no.2 to challenge the order dated 27.11.2017 dismissing her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has been condoned. Applicant has appeared in-person and argued that the complaint by opposite party no.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the face of it was frivolous, therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, the Magistrate dismissed the same vide order dated 27.11.2017. She has further argued that the complainant ought to have availed the statutory remedy against the order dated 27.11.2017 within the prescribed time frame, but instead she carried the revision petition beyond the statutory period of 90 days, and the same was barred by approximately 40 days. Applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the application under Section 5 Limitation Act and pointed out that the complainant has not sufficiently explained each and every day's delay in filing the revision petition, who has maligned the applicant in pleading that the delay was because of the torture exercised by the applicant. She submits that the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 passed by revisional court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the revisional court has shown extraordinary leniency in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr. Nutan Thakur Inperson Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dr. Nutan Thakur .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) condoning the delay. She prays that the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 be set aside. The notice in the petition was issued on 11.11.2019, but no one has chosen to appear on behalf of opposite party no.2-complainant, despite service. As far as the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the nature of order is revisable, and concededly while refusing to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant's application was not treated as a complaint case, therefore, being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant preferred the revision petition. A perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay would show that apart from the allegations against the applicant, the complainant has also sought indulgence of the revisional court to seek condonation of delay on the ground of financial constraints faced by the complainant. Further, the revisional court in the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 may not have accepted the explanation offered by the complainant with elaborate reasoning, as it proceeded to condone the delay, in the interest of justice. Even though, the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 does not contain much of the reasoning while condoning the delay of approximately 40 days, but it alone would not be sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.10.2019. Thus, finding no merit in the application, the same is hereby dismissed. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) December 1, 2025 P.S. Parihar A482 No. 7932 of 2019 2 Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench