(2025:JHHC:27672) Cr.M.P. No.2611 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2611 of 2025 Dharam Prakash Shah, aged about 39 years, son of Bhrigu Nath Shah, resident of Vill-01, Karbi Path of Village Jyotikuchi, Guwahati, P.O.- Jyotikuchi, P.S.-Fatashil Ambari, Dist.-Kamrup (M) Assam .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. with the prayer to quash the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2025 whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the revision being barred by limitation and did not allow the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with the said Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2025 for condoning the delay of 461 days, on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause. (2025:JHHC:27672) Cr.M.P. No.2611 of 2025 2 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of Govindpur P.S. Case No. 500 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5955 of 2015. Police after investigation of the case did not submit charge sheet against the petitioner. Vide order dated 21.09.2023, the learned trial court arrayed the petitioner as an accused in the said G.R. Case No. 5955 of 2015 and directed for issue of summons. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has never received any summon and for the first time, he came to know about the impugned order on 07.01.2025 and the said criminal revision was filed on 26.03.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has committed a gross illegality by holding that the petitioner failed to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the criminal revision in time. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner has failed to furnish any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 461 days in filing the criminal revision. Hence, it is submitted that as the impugned order is without suffering from any illegality, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. (2025:JHHC:27672) Cr.M.P. No.2611 of 2025 3 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is a resident of District of Kamrup (M) in the State of Assam. It is also a fact that the police after investigation of the case did not send up the petitioner for trial. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has not received any summon in connection with G.R. Case No. 5955 of 2015 after he was arrayed as an accused, in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. Hence, he was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the criminal revision in time. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the fact that the petitioner for the first time came to know about his being arrayed as an accused in the case concerned on 07.01.2025 has remained uncontroverted. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has committed a gross illegality by observing that the petitioner had knowledge about the delay; as the same is based on without any material in the record, to the said effect. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has committed gross illegality by depriving the petitioner the opportunity of his Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2025 being heard on merit to do substantive justice. 10. Accordingly, the said order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 58 of (2025:JHHC:27672) Cr.M.P. No.2611 of 2025 4 2025 being not in accordance with law; the same is quashed and set aside. 11. The Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2025 is remanded to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, for passing a fresh order on the merits of the said Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2025 without being prejudiced by this order; after providing the opportunity of being heard to the parties. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-