60 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC (Crl A) No.2 of 2025 Waikhom Ranbir Meitei … Applicant -Versus- Aribam Bankabihari Sharma & 3 Ors … Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA 27.7.2026 Heard Mr.A.Golly, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.A.Gautam Sharma, learned counsel for respondents. By the present application, applicant prays for condining delay of 167 days in filing the accompanying Cril Appeal. It is submitted that the present applicant filed a private complaint before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Imphal West-II against respondents. It is also stated that on 21.2.2019 charge under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 34 IPC was framed against the respondents and matter was proceeded. On 2.4.2024, as none appeared on behalf of the complainant, learned JMIC Imphal west-II dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. Thereafter, order dated 2.4.2024 was challenged by the applicant herein before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West by filing Cril Revision Case No.11 of 2024 under Sections 397/399 of Cr.P.C. However by order dated 31.12.2024, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition as the same was not maintainable. Thereafter, applicant approached this Court by filing appeal against order dated 2.4.2024. While doing so, delay as mentioned above has already been occurred. Mr.A.Golly, learned counsel for applicant submits that dismissal of private complaint for non-prosecution before the Magistrate, after framing of charge amounts to acquittal, under Sections 256 of the Cr.P.C and appeal lies to the High Court against such order, as provided under Sections 378(3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that period i.e. from 9.8.2024 to 31.12.2024 (pendency of revision petition before learned Sessions Judge) being before wrong forum, would be excluded by the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the circumstance, it is submitted that actual delay is for 30 (thirty) days in all, after excluding the period spent before wrong forum and time taken in getting certified copy. It is prayed that actual delay of thirty days may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merit. On the other hand, Mr.A.Gautam Sharma, learned counsel for respondents submits that even though there are some unfounded allegations against respondents, delay may be condoned on imposition of cost. This Court has perused the materials on record and major portion of time is taken in getting Certified Copy of the impugned order dated 2.4.2024 passed by learned JMIC, Imphal West-II dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution and agitating before wrong forum. In the circumstance, delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs.2,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Bar Association, Manipur. On submission of proof of payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-, Registry is directed to number the accompanying Special Leave for Appeal, if the same is in order, and list before the appropriate Bench. With the above observation, Misc Case is allowed. JUDGE Priyojit RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2026.07.28 14:32:06 +05'30'