1 2026:CGHC:7557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 448 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Uday Narayan Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years R/o Katghora Road Dipka, Police Station Dipka, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Harishankar Joshi S/o Vidyadhar Joshi R/o Katghora Raod Dipka, Police Station Dipka, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Suresh Kumar Joshi S/o Vidyadhar Joshi R/o Katghora Raod Dipka, Police Station Dipka, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) And Also Through The Police Of Police Station Dipka, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the III Upper Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in an unregistered case, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. Facts of the case :- The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with a ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba, seeking registration of an FIR against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stating inter alia that he is a permanent resident of Katghora Road, Dipka, and runs an electronic shop, adjacent to which the accused run a hardware shop and illegally kept iron rods and other materials encroaching upon his side, leading to frequent altercations, during which the accused abused him in filthy language, threatened and assaulted him. Despite reporting the incident to Police Station Dipka and thereafter submitting a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Korba, no action was taken, compelling the complainant to invoke Section 156(3) CrPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora took cognizance and directed registration of an FIR, pursuant to which Crime No.156/2018 was registered and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 451, 294, 323 and 506 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Initially, the accused respondents No1 & 2 pleaded not guilty; however, subsequently they admitted their guilt, and accordingly, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.12.2024 convicted them under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 451 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed lesser sentences. 4. As the accused pleaded guilty, the complainant/petitioner was not examined as a witness and was unaware of the judgment until 3 02.05.2025, whereafter he promptly applied for certified copies on 03.05.2025, received the same on 08.05.2025, and, owing to health reasons, filed an appeal on 21.05.2025 before the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Katghora along with an application for condonation of delay. However, the learned appellate Court, without admitting the appeal, dismissed it vide order dated 13.11.2025 solely on the ground of delay, holding that the complainant failed to satisfactorily explain the same, which order is assailed as illegal, erroneous and contrary to law, as the sufficient cause shown by the complainant was overlooked. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellant had no knowledge of the disposal of the complaint case, as he was not examined before the trial Court during trial owing to the respondents/accused having pleaded guilty. It is contended that the appellant visited the concerned trial Court on 02.05.2025 to inquire about the status of the case and only then came to know that the matter had already been decided on the basis of admission of guilt by the respondents/accused vide judgment dated 24.12.2024. Thereafter, without any delay, the appellant, through his counsel, applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 03.05.2025, which was made available to him on 08.05.2025. Learned counsel further submits that immediately after receiving the certified copy, the appellant’s health suddenly deteriorated, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed 4 period; however, upon improvement of his health, the appeal was filed promptly and without any further delay. It is thus submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, unintentional, and occasioned by circumstances beyond the knowledge and control of the appellant, constituting sufficient cause for condonation in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further contends that the learned appellate Court, without appreciating these sufficient and cogent reasons, mechanically dismissed the application for condonation of delay, rendering the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 illegal, erroneous and unsustainable in law, and therefore prays that the said impugned order be set aside. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost care. 7. The record does not disclose that the petitioner was possessed knowledge of the decision dated 24.12.2024 on the said date. Having considered the submissions made and the reasons assigned for the delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that the explanation furnished by the petitioner constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of law. The delay in filing the appeal appears to be neither deliberate nor intentional, but occasioned due to bona fide circumstances. The learned Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, failed to adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach, resulting in denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to have his appeal adjudicated on merits. 5 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the III Upper Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) is hereby set aside and the delay in filing the said appeal is condoned. 9. It is further directed that the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court, which shall decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 09th March, 2026. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena