- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 965 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI RAJESH RAO ABED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SUNDAR RAO, R/AT T.V. PAI COMPOUND, SAMETADKA, PUTTURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. …PETITIONER (BY MR. P.P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MR. ABHIRAM KUMAR.P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LALITH S RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SURESH RAO, R/O C/O KAMALAKSHA RAO, MAHAGANAPATHI COMPOUND, THAAREDOLYA, JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU-575 001. Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 2. SMT.NEETHA S RAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O LALITH S RAO, C/O KAMALAKSHA RAO, MAHAGANAPATHI COMPOUND, THAAREDOLYA, JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001. 3. THE STATE THROUGH THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION, MANGALURU-575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R3, MR. RAHGAVENDRA.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.(UNNUMERED)/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order passed on I.A.No.1/2018 in an unnumbered Criminal Appeal No.(Unnumbered)/2018 dated 11.06.2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed I.A.No.1/2018 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') accompanied to the appeal and accordingly, ordered that the appeal is not registered. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that: The revision petitioner herein lodged a complaint against respondents No.1 and 2 before Mangaluru East Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The said case registered in Cr.No.162/2007 against respondents No.1 and 2. On completing of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against respondents No.1 and 2 for the aforementioned offences before the Trial Court i.e., III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mangaluru in C.C.No.25/2010. After a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 detailed trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused- respondents No.1 and 2 for the offences they have charged i.e., the aforementioned offences. Against the said acquittal judgment, the revision petitioner-victim preferred an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge. While filing the said appeal, there was a delay of 416 days. To condone the said delay, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2018 in an unregistered criminal appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing I.A.No.1/2018 i.e., the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the application and ordered that appeal is not registered. The said order is challenged in this revision petition by the revision petitioner/complainant. 3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P.Hegde for the revision petitioner and learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra.S., for respondents No.1 and 2 so also learned HCGP Sri Rajath Subramanya for respondent No.3. 4. The primary contention of the learned Senior counsel is that the First Appellate Court grossly erred while dismissing the delay application i.e., I.A.No.1/2018 for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 reason that the petitioner, being the complainant in C.C.No.25/2010, was oblivious of the judgment passed in the said case by the learned Magistrate. He contended that the petitioner-complainant is having a good case on merits since the Trial Court acquitted the accused i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 without examining the evidence on record in right perspective. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, on comprehensively examining the materials on record, passed a well-reasoned order by rejecting I.A.No.1/2018, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He further contended that the reasons enumerated by the petitioner in the application for condonation of the delay stating that the petitioner was out of station and that he was unable to contact his counsel, also he was unaware of the acquittal order passed in C.C.No.25/2010, are highly unacceptable. According to the learned counsel, there was a pending case against the revision petitioner before the same Magistrate i.e., III Additional Senior Civil Judge and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 JMFC at Mangaluru in C.C.No.1/2013 based on a complaint lodged by respondents No.1 and 2 and the petitioner regularly attended the said case. Hence, the reasons assigned in the delay application are frivolous, false and unacceptable. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. As could be gathered from the records, based on the complaint lodged by the revision petitioner, a case was registered against respondents No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.162/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The said case was tried before III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mangaluru in C.C.No.25/2010. In the said case, the revision petitioner, who was the complainant, had examined himself as PW.1 along with 5 other witnesses and four documents were marked. The accused i.e., respondent No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and marked 9 documents. The Trial Court, on meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, acquitted the accused i.e., respondents No. 1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them by assigning the reason that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 Admittedly, the said judgment was not challenged by the State. Albeit, the complainant i.e., revision petitioner challenged the said judgment under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court. However, while preferring the said appeal, there was a delay of 416 days. As such, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2018 to condone the delay. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the delay application i.e., I.A.No.1/2018 assigned the reason, which reads as under: "7. The Judgment of acquittal came to be passed in C.C.No.25/2010 on 10.11.2016 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Mangaluru. The present applicant had applied for the certified copy of the same on 12.02.2018 and obtained the same on 16.02.2018. The present application with appeal memo came to be filed on 06.03.2018. According to the applicant, he came to know about the Judgment of acquittal on 01.02.2018. He has not whispered why he has not immediately applied for the certified copy of the impugned Judgment and he has not offered any explanation why he has committed further delay in filing an appeal on 06.03.2018, even though he has been obtained the certified copy of the impugned Judgment on 16.02.2018. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 8. The Counsel for the respondents has produced two documents to show that this applicant was one of the accused. i.e., accused No.3 in C.C.No.1/2013 on the file of JMFC (II Court) Mangaluru and he used to attend the said Court. The certified copy of the Order sheet of C.C.No.1/2013 indicates that this applicant was accused No.3 in C.C.No.1/2013, When this applicant was accused No.3 in C.C.No.1/2013 used to obtain exemption, I failed to understand why he has not enquired his Advocate about the outcome of the C.C.No.25/2010, wherein he gave evidence as the complainant. No ordinary prudent man would keep quiet without enquiring the Advocate about the outcome of the case wherein he is the complainant. The applicant has not assigned any sufficient cause to condone the delay. The applicant has set up unbelievable reasons to condone the delay. The application requires to be rejected. 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - ORDER I.A. No.I filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is not registered." - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13185 CRL.RP No. 965 of 2018 7. On careful perusal of the above reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, it could be gathered that the petitioner had knowledge of acquittal of respondents No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.25/2010 as the revision petitioner was appearing before the same Court as accused in C.C.No.1/2013. Further, the other reason assigned by the revision petitioner is that he was out of station and was unable to contact his advocate is also far from truth. In such circumstances, the inordinate delay of 416 days has not been duly explained by the revision petitioner-complainant. Hence, the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.1/2018 and ordered that the appeal is not registered. I find no good grounds to interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against this backdrop, the revision petition lacks merits and the same is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18