1 2025:CGHC:57925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 2494 of 2025 Saradhu Koreti S/o Niring Sai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khadgaon Tahsil Manpur District Rajnandgaon (Now Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki) Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House Officer Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Thana (Then Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh) Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh 3 - The Station House Officer Thana Khadgaon District Rajnandgaon (Now Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. N.K. Malaviya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/11/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for condonation of delay. The instant appeal being filed after 1040 days from the prescribed period of 2 limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has filed this instant petition challenging 26.09.2022 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by learned Special Judge [Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon [Now Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowkil in Miscellaneous Unregistered case wherein the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC has been dismissed. He would further submit that the learned Court below has illegally caste burden to get finger print report from the finger print expert if such report comes in positive then the applicant can to revive the file the application application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for registering crime against the proposed accused persons, therefore, no other option is left to complete the proceedings to get finger print reports. In this regard the appellant tried to get original records from the respondent but it could no be materialized. The appellant tried to get reports but no one responded positively. The appellant has approach the Court for setting aside the impugned order. In this process the delay of 1040 days occurred bona fide and unintentional. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Court may kindly be pleased to condone the delay of 1040 days occurred in filing the appeal. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that cogent reason has not been placed on record for filing the appeal by inordinate delay, therefore, this appeal may not be entertained. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On 3 perusal of the record, I have found that earlier the appellant had preferred WPCR bearing No.668/2018 which was decided on 07.03.2019 with a direction to file complaint before the competent Court. Relevant part of Para – 4 & 5 of the said order are reproduced as under : “4. ……..xxxxx In view of such document prima facie it appears that the dispute inter se is about service jurisprudence and certain proceedings are pending before the Labour Court or Tribunal. If the cognizable offence is not been committed then in such case the Court cannot make it cognizable by the order. If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he can file complaint before the competent court. 5. The petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.” 6. Thereafter, the appellant had filed appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing Writ Appeal No.615/2019 and the said Bench had passed the order vide order dated 14.03.2022. Para – 15 of the said order is reproduced as under : “15. Considering the entirety of the case and material available on record and also in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, we do not find any substance in this writ appeal to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. 16. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the appellants/petitioners is dismissed. No costs.” 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the order impugned has been passed by the Special Judge on 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) and the appellant has filed this appeal on 25.11.2025 against the said impugned order dated 26.09.2022, i.e., total delay of 1040 days. 4 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the delay of 1040 days is inordinate and unexplained. The only reason assigned is that the appellant was trying to obtain a finger-print report and contacting authorities, which consumed time. 9. The explanation furnished is vague, general and unsupported by any material, such as correspondence with authorities, applications filed, reminders issued, or replies received. Nothing has been placed to show that the appellant acted promptly or was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. 10. It is a settled proposition that while the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction, such liberality cannot extend to condoning gross negligence, lack of diligence or casual indifference. The appellant is required to show a bona fide, tangible and convincing reason explaining the delay, which is completely absent in the present case. 11. It is a trite law that “Length of delay is not material; sufficiency of explanation is. Rights accrued by lapse of limitation cannot be lightly disturbed. Courts cannot condone delay on sympathy or on vague assertions of difficulty.” 12. In the present matter, the appellant has failed to explain even approximately three years of delay. The cause shown does not inspire confidence and does not satisfy the parameters laid down for condonation of delay. 13. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to condone the inordinate delay (1040 days) and would not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. 5 14. Accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay is rejected. 15. As a natural consequence, the criminal appeal itself, being hopelessly barred by limitation, cannot be entertained and stands dismissed. 16. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant