2025:JHHC:31038 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1005 of 2023 …. Shankar Rajak, aged about 40 years, Son of Shyam Sundar Rajak, Resident of Village-Markacho, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District- Koderma Present Resident of village-Dudhimati, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Kali Devi, Wife of Fagu Ram @ Fagu Ram Rajak, Resident of Village-Dudhimati, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District- Koderma ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate …… CAV Judgement Delivered on 29/08/2025 This instant Criminal Revision application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the judgment dated 21.11.2019, passed by Sri Tarun Kumar, the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 66/2019, affirming the order dated 22.06.2019, passed by Miss Lydia Francisca Kerketta, then learned J.M. 1st Class, Koderma, in Complaint Case No.182/2019 (T.R. 76/2019), instituted under section 13(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by which the petitioner has been found to have committed the offence under Clause (iv) of Explanation I to Section 3 of the Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the learned Court below prohibited him to commit any act of 2025:JHHC:31038 2 domestic violence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma has further passed protection order u/s 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005 in favour of the Complainant-O.P. No.2 and further the petitioner has been directed to remove himself from the shared household within one month from the date of order under section 19 of said Act. 2. The complainant namely Smt. Kali Devi had filed complaint case No.182/2019 stated that the complainant has only 2 daughters, both of whom were married. Out of two daughters, one daughter has died and another daughter, namely, Sukanti Devi sometimes come over and takes care of her old aged parents. It is stated that the husband of the complainant kept the son of his brother, namely Shankar Rajak (i.e. petitioner) with the intention that he will take care of them in their old age. They also sent him to school for studies. However, when Shankar Rajak got married, he started residing in the complainant’s house along with his wife and both started torturing the old couple. It is also alleged that it had become a daily affair for the respondent to assault, abuse, pushing the complaint to disbalance, throwing the food away, throwing the complainant out from her own house and closing the door for her own house and closing the door from inside. It is further stated by the complainant that the house is their self- acquired property and they have constructed it by their own hard- earned money. On 22.12.2018, the respondent fought with the complainant and started assaulting and abusing her and threw out of the house on a chilled night during winter season. It is only when the neighbours intervened, the respondent allowed the complainant to enter into the house in the morning but continued to torture the complainant and therefore, the complainant has filed 2025:JHHC:31038 3 this case for the relief that the petitioner be restrained from doing any inhuman behavior with the complainant and the petitioner may be removed from the house of the Complainant i.e. O.P. No.2 so that she may lived with her husband during her last stage of her life and from passing any other proper order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in I.A. No.7212 of 2023 and on the merit of this Criminal Revision Application and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is some delay of 544 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application and the petitioner was jobless due to Covid-19 pandemic period. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in Krishna Rai (Dead) through legal representatives and Ors. Vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and Ors. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 713, and Prahlad Shankar Rao Tajale and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary (Revenue) and Anr. reported in (2018) 4 SCC 615 para 15, and Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online Jammu and Kashmir 16. Hence, the delay of 544 days may be condoned in filing this Criminal Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court are illegal, arbitrary, and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Lower Court as well as Appellate Court have not considered the facts that admittedly the petitioner is the only son of complainant, even if adopted, when he was only three months and till now there was no complain from any corner from the family nor from the society. 6. It is submitted that the Trial Court below has not considered that complainant as well her husband has no where 2025:JHHC:31038 4 stated about any specific date of misbehave or filed any documents regarding in this matter. 7. It is submitted that the Lower Court has not taken into account, that the only reason for filing of the case, is that complainant and her husband wanted to sell some lands for which the petitioner being the son, genuinely opposed and as a matter of repercussion, this complaint case was instituted. It is submitted that the petitioner has performed Shradh/last rites of his Foster father namely Fagu Ram who had died on 01.11.2022. 8. It is submitted that the learned Courts below have not taken into account that on the instigation of complainant’s daughter namely Sukanti Devi, the complainant has filed this case making certain allegations and in cross-examination complainant has falsely stated that the petitioner is not her son, though husband of the complainant has stated that petitioner is his son and when he was only three months since then he is staying with them. It is submitted that the Lower Court has totally ignored the facts, that the petitioner from his childhood is staying with his parents and at this stage also he has the right to live with his parents. 9. It is submitted that vide impugned order dated 22.06.2019, learned Trial Court below had directed the petitioner to vacate the house consisting of three rooms but the petitioner has been living in the said house since he was three months old. 10. It is submitted that no counselling has been done by the learned Judicial Magistrate as per the Provisions of Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. It is further submitted that even the affidavit has not been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and there is no report of the Probation Officer in the light of Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2025:JHHC:31038 5 11. It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not passed the order under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act earlier rather the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the order under Section 19(i) of Domestic Violence Act and no neighbour has been examined. 12. It is submitted that the restriction of Section 19-C and Section 19-D of Domestic Violence Act could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. 13. It is submitted that CW-1 Kali Devi and CW-2 Fagu Ram are the complainant and husband of the complainant, however, their evidence is not reliable on the point of domestic violence. 14. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are too harsh and without application of mind, without appreciation of the fact and as such the judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and learned Trial Court may be set aside and this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interreference is required and this Criminal revision may be disposed of. 16. It is submitted that there is delay of 544 days in filing Criminal Revision application by the petitioner and he is required to file proper explanation of each and every date and this delay of some days cannot be condoned. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be disposed of. 17. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and learned Trial Court below are fit and no interreference is required. It is submitted that the complainant is the own Aunt of the petitioner and she is widow lady aged more than 62 years but 2025:JHHC:31038 6 she had been ousted several times by the petitioner from her own house and she was compelled to live the outside from her own house whole night before inducting the complainant. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 i.e. the complainant and her husband have thoroughly neglected by the petitioner. 18. It is submitted that the petitioner is not biological son of the O.P. No.2 rather the petitioner has been kept by the husband of the O.P. No.2 from his childhood but the petitioner has been harassing her even after death of her husband. 19. It is submitted that the Nati and daughter of O.P. no.2 have given expenses to the O.P. No.2 for her survival but the petitioner has not given any monetary relief. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 has been physically and economically abused by the petitioner. It is submitted that the monetary abused has been denied under Section 3-a of Proviso of Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act. 20. Perused the records of this case and I.A. No.7212 of 2023 and I.A. No.2395 of 2024 and submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. 21. I.A. No.7212 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay of 544 days. It is submitted that the petitioner has lost his job during Covid-2019 pandemic period and he was facing great financial crunch, as he could not file this criminal appeal within time. However, he had approached his counsel on 12.07.2023, after having earned a little bit, then this criminal appeal has been filed and as such the delay of 544 days may be condoned. 22. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 have opposed the prayer of the appellant. 23. It appears that the order dated 22.06.2019 has been 2025:JHHC:31038 7 passed by the learned Trial Court and the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2019 has been passed in Criminal Appeal No.66/2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court. However, in the meantime, the Covid-19 Pandemic period had started which remained lastly till December 2021. 24. It appears that even there is delay of 544 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application and for which the financial crunch of the petitioner and Covid-19 pandemic period have been assigned as the main reasons. 25. This Court finds that the delay of filing of this Criminal Revision has not been sufficiently explained by the petitioner in its I.A. No.7212 of 2023 as the petitioner is required to explain the delay of each and every day. Even after discontinuous of Covid-19 pandemic period in the year 2021, there is delay of 544 days in filing this Criminal Revision and which has not been sufficiently explained. 26. It has been held in the case of K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Vs. Gyanendra Pratap and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 508 at para-10 as follows:- “Para:-10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi, (2021) 18 SCC 384). The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay (See P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556). Thus, it is apparent that the words ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant (See Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81). The principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay were succinctly summarised by this Court in Esha 2025:JHHC:31038 8 Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, and are reproduced as under: “21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted, or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily 2025:JHHC:31038 9 to face such a litigation. ………………………..” (emphasis supplied) Having perused the application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC dated 23.11.2020, filed by the appellant, and the accompanying affidavit, wherein the appellant had sought the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of a delay of almost 14 years, we find there was no satisfactory or reasonable ground given by the appellant explaining the delay. We say this for two reasons. First, it is an admitted position by the appellant himself that upon an inspection of the case file in the year 2011, he came to know about the order dated 06.09.2006, by which the Trial Court had decided to proceed exparte against him. What prevented the appellant from filing the application under Order IX, Rule 7 that year itself has not been satisfactorily explained at all, as the first application was only filed in the year 2017. Secondly, the explanation offered by the appellant, which is that the advocate appointed by him did not pursue the matter, diligently, and then another advocate was appointed by him who inadvertently forgot to file the application does not find support from the records. What is clear is that the appellant has been grossly negligent in pursuing the matter before the trial court. Thus, the trial court, the revisional court as well as the High Court, were correct in dismissing the belated claim of the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appeal stands dismissed. 27. It has been held in the case of Mool Chandra vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 of para-20 as follows:- “Para-20:- No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded, will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is sufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” 2025:JHHC:31038 10 28. Thus, it is evident that the party concerned has to party to explain the delay for each and every date. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon in the case of Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online Jammu and Kashmir 16 but the same is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner has not given cogent reason and has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. 30. In the present case, this Court finds that the delay has not been sufficiently explained by the petitioner. 31. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1272 of 2023 is hereby rejected. 32. Although, this Court is not required to pass final order on merit but for better appreciation of this case, this Court is also passing order on the merit of this case also. 33. This is a case of torture upon the Complainant-O.P.No.2 by her own nephew i.e the petitioner Shankar Rajak who is residing in his house for more than forty (40) years. There is no document to show that the petitioner is the adopted son of the Complainant. 34. The Appellate Court has also held that the relationship of the complainant and the O.P. No.2 i.e. Shankar Rajak was found strained and it is also found that O.P. No.2 i.e. Shankar Rajak has committed domestic violence against his old parents i.e. the Complainant Kali Devi and Fagu Ram and CW-2 Fagu Ram clearly stated during his evidence that his wife was assaulted by the petitioner due to which she was continuously treated for six (06) days in Ranchi and was not providing food to them. 35. From perusal of the order of Trial Court, it reveals that a broad discussion has been made in the order dated 22.06.2019. 36. It also reveals that domestic incident report was 2025:JHHC:31038 11 summoned from the Protection Office (C.D.P.O.) Koderma and the Respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. Shankar Rajak and Malo Devi w/o Shankar Rajak were summoned vide order of the Court dated 13.02.2019 and both the respondents were summoned to appear on 20.02.2019. Further, a status report was also called from the Officer-in Charge, Koderma. On 20.02.2019, adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the respondent for filing reply to the show cause. On 22.02.2019 reply to the show cause was filed by the respondents. On 26.02.2019, the Status Report was also received from the concerned P.S. 37. It also reveals that in the Status Report, it is reported that the complainant, namely Kali Devi is residing along with her Husband, Fagu Ram. During the course of investigation, it was found that Fagu Ram was taking care of Shankar Rajak, who is the son of brother of Fagu Ram, since he was 3 months old. Both the complainant and her husband maintained the child by providing all necessities including nourishment, studies and even got him married. It was also reported that the house of the complainant has in all 6 rooms, of which 3 rooms are used by the respondent-O.P. No.2 and other 3 are used by the complainant along with her husband. Further, the complainant and the respondent are not in talking terms and maintain separate kitchen. The respondent is a Karate teacher and is giving training in schools. It was found from the neighbours that Fagu Ram wants to sell off his share of land to which the respondent objects and this is the main cause of dispute between the parties. 38. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence of CW-1 i.e. the Complainant and CW-2 i.e. Fagu Ram i.e. the husband of the Complainant held that the complainant has proved her case and the petitioner i.e. Shankar Rajak i.e. the son of the Complainant 2025:JHHC:31038 12 was living in their house forcibly and assaulting them physically and verbally and for which they had made complaint before SDO Court. 39. It further transpires that even the report from the C.D.P.O. Koderma was called for and which was submitted before the learned Court below. 40. It also reveals from the order dated 13.02.2019 that the learned C.J.M, Koderma has also called for the report of domestic incident report from the Protection Officer. Even the learned C.J.M, Koderma has called for the report from the concerned Police Station. 41. On the other hand, the petitioner has himself examined as RW-1 and refuted the claim of the O.P. No.2 and denied the charges but during cross-examination he himself admitted that his father and mother i.e. the Complainant and her husband are not taking meal from him. He admitted that the house and property belongs to his parents i.e. the Complainant and also admitted for showing ignorance and his father is only getting Rs.1200/- per month as pension. He has also admitted in para-18 of the cross-examination that he is not giving any expenses for food, medicine etc. towards his parents i.e. the Complainant and her husband. He also admitted for filing of the partition suit as his father was selling the land. 42. Thus, the evidence of the petitioner has himself shown that he was not taking care of his parents (i.e. O.P. No.2 and Fagu Ram). 43. It is also evident from the evidence of CW-1 and CW-2 that both the complainant and her husband were harassed and sometimes the complainant-O.P. No.2 had been thrown out from her own house by the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:31038 13 44. Even, it has appeared from the records that the petitioner has filed partition suit before the learned Civil Courts, Koderma. 45. The judgment passed in Krishna Rai (Dead) through legal representatives and Ors. Vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and Ors. Reported in 2022 Vol.8 SCC 713 is also not applicable because it relates to power of Competent Authority with regard to recruitment process. 46. The judgment passed in Prahlad Shankar Rao Tajale and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary (Revenue) and Anr. reported in 2018 Vol.4 SCC 615 is also not applicable because it relates on the point of condoning the delay and stated that liberal attitude should be taken in condoning the delay and then the Hon’ble High Court had dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground of delay. 47. The learned Trial Court also noticed some inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses but has failed to take into account that the property belongs to the parents and it is constructed by hard earned money and the petitioner Shankar Rajak residing in their house against their wishes and this is not the ancestral property of the petitioner i.e. Shankar Rajak. 48. Thus, the learned Court below has passed order under Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act by prohibiting the petitioner to commit any domestic violence and production order under Section 18 in favour of the Complainant. 49. The learned Court below has further passed order under Section 19 of Domestic Violence Act by directing the petitioner to remove himself from share household within one (01) month. 50. This Court finds no illegality in the Judgment passed by the learned Appellant Court and learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No.1005 of 2023 is 2025:JHHC:31038 14 hereby dismissed. 51. Thus, the judgment dated 21.11.2019, passed by Sri Tarun Kumar, the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 66/2019, and the order dated 22.06.2019, passed by Miss Lydia Francisca Kerketta, the learned J.M. 1st Class, Koderma, in Complaint Case No.182/2019 (T.R. 76/2019) are, hereby, affirmed. 52. Accordingly, the interim order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court and order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnakar Bhengra as then his Lordship was) of this Court stand vacated. 53. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Appellate Court below as well as learned Trial Court below for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgment Dated 29.08.2025 N.A.F.R./ Nishant