Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53005 Court No. - 76 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3493 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Navita Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted seeking quashment of the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ghaziabad, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.287 of 2024 (Navita vs. Sukhdev Gupta and Others), as well as the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Trans Hindon, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, in Case No.10 of 2023 under Section 133 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad. 3. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication, are that a dispute arose between the parties concerning alleged illegal encroachment. Acting upon a report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kaushambi, proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated. As per the report dated 19.09.2023, Plot No. KA- 58, comprising three floors, had an encroachment on the ground floor, attributed to the petitioner, affecting the common area and the service lane adjacent to the building. The said encroachment resulted in a dispute between the first-floor owner, Sukhdev Gupta, and the second-floor owner, Sanjay Sharma. Pursuant thereto, notice was issued to the parties directing removal of the nuisance, and the matter was fixed for 10.10.2023 for reply. Upon consideration of the petitioner's reply, the Special Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police, after due adjudication, passed the order dated 04.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.287 of 2024 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad; however, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2025 on the ground of delay, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court has erred in dismissing the revision without assigning adequate reasons. 6. Upon careful examination of the record, it is evident that there was a delay of eighty (80) days in filing the revision, and no satisfactory explanation has been offered to condone such delay. It is a well-settled principle that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. A litigant seeking indulgence of the Court for condonation of delay must demonstrate sufficient cause, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 7. Further, upon a perusal of the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police, no patent illegality, jurisdictional infirmity, or violation of principles of natural justice is discernible. The proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law, following due process, and with due consideration to the submissions of the parties. 8. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of unexplained delay and on merits. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 I.A.Siddiqui Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad