Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102618 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1615 of 2023 Revisionist :- Irfan Ahmad And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Firdos Ahmad,Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Upadhyay,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Yadav Advocate holding brief of Sri Firdos Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionists; Sri Anurag Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist to set aside the order dated 18.7.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate/FTC (Offence against Women), District Mau in Case Crime No. 04 of 2018 (State Vs. Irfan and others) under section 498-A, 504, 506, 507 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act and 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mau. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that revisionists challenged the impugned order dated 18.7.2022 passed by the trial court by which charges were framed upon them but there is delay of 389 days in filing the instant revision. He next submits, revisionists did not deliberately filed the instant revision beyond time and as they could not arrange the fee and other relevant documents in time, therefore, they could not file the revision in time and therefore, delay condonation application filed by the revisionists should be allowed and revision should be heard on merit. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that vague grounds have been taken by the revisionists in their delay condonation application and on such vague grounds, delay of 389 days in filing the instant revision should not be condoned and therefore, delay condonation application filed by the revisionists is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the instant revision should also be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The instant revision is beyond time by 389 days and however, as per learned counsel for the revisionists as they could not make arrangement of fee and other relevant documents in time, therefore, they could not file the instant revision in time but the grounds taken by the revisionists in their delay condonation application appear to be vague and in view of this Court, on such vague grounds, the delay of 389 days in filing the instant revision, should not be condoned. 7. Accordingly, the instant delay condonation application filed by the revisionists is hereby dismissed. Order on Crl. Revision 8. As delay condonation application filed by the revisionists has already been dismissed, therefore, the instant revision also, stands, dismissed being time barred. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad