2026:HHC:31929 _______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 2456 of 2023 Reserved on: 23.07.2026 Date of Decision: 31.07.2026 Bal Krishan Rawat .... Applicant Versus Chaman Lal .... Non-applicant Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the applicant : Mr Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the non-applicant. : Mr Arvind Sharma, Senior Advocate with M/s Kiran Sharma and Divyay Singh Thakur, Advocates. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant has filed an appeal against acquittal of the respondent, which is barred by the limitation. The applicant is an aged person and a chronic patient of diabetes. He had engaged Mr Dalip Kapta as his lawyer. The applicant 2 2026:HHC:31929 regularly appeared before the Court but sought exemption on many occasions. The matter was listed for proper order, and the applicant did not bother about the dates of hearing. The applicant remained under the impression that he would be intimated by his counsel or the Court. Some other lawyer appeared on applicant’s behalf as per the judgment of the learned trial Court. The applicant's counsel never intimated the applicant about the disposal of the complaint. Hence, the applicant could not finl the appeal in time. The applicant had a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the applicant has not filed any document to show his ailment. The applicant was never regular in attending the complaint. He is a money lender and a habitual litigant. He was aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. He has put up a false case to seek the condonation of delay. 3 2026:HHC:31929 Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. This Court framed the following issues on 12.07.2024: - 1. Whether there are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay? OPA. 2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR. 3. Whether the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands? OPR 4. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence and the applicant examined himself (AW-1). The respondent examined Jitender Singh, Criminal Ahlmad (RW-1). 5. I have heard Mr Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Arvind Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by M/s Kiran Sharma and Mr Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocates, for the non-applicant. 6. Mr Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant could not appear before the Court due to his ailment. He had engaged Mr Dalip Kapta, Advocate, but some other advocate appeared on his behalf. The applicant was never told about the decision of the complaint, and he could not prefer the appeal within time. Therefore, he prayed that the 4 2026:HHC:31929 present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 7. Mr Arvind Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, for the non-applicant submitted that the applicant is a chronic litigant and he has filed many complaints before the Court. He was aware of the proceedings and had not deliberately filed the appeal within time. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar & anr. vs Ved Prakash, 2024: INSC 891 and the judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal vs. Shriram General Insurance & others in CMP(M) No.346 of 2018, decided on 2.04.2022 in support of his submission. 8. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Issue No.1 9. The applicant stated that he went to attend the case personally on every date of hearing, but the case was prolonged, and he was assured by his counsel that he would be intimated about the decision of the case; however, he did not receive any 5 2026:HHC:31929 information or message. He came to know about the decision of the case in September, 2021. 10. Section 256 of Cr.P.C. provides that the complainant has to be present on every date of hearing unless exempted by the Court; therefore, a primary obligation has been cast upon the complainant to attend the hearing. The applicant was the complainant before the learned trial Court, and he cannot take advantage of the fact that he had not complied with the statutory mandate. 11. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar (supra) that the tendency of the litigants to throw the blame on their lawyer for their negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings cannot be a ground to condone the delay because a litigator is supposed to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending before the Court. It was observed: - 10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers for negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay, as the litigant owes a 6 2026:HHC:31929 duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. 12. The applicant asserted that he is a chronic patient of diabetes, but he has not filed any record to support his claim. Therefore, the said plea cannot be accepted. 13. The applicant denied in his cross-examination that he had filed many civil suits and complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. Statement of Jitender Singh (RW-1) shows that the applicant had filed 38 complaints before the Court in different years, some of which are pending and some of which have been decided. Therefore, the applicant was well aware of the procedure of the Court, and has tried to conceal the filing of the various complaints by him. It was held by this Court in Shyam Lal (supra) that a party, who has come to the Court with falsehood, is not entitled to the continuation of the delay. It was observed: - 15. Once it is found and firmly established that a party has approached the court with a false stand, then it is the settled principle in law that such party is not entitled to the relief which is discretionary and equitable. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & anr, (2008) 17 SCC 448, has refused to condone 7 2026:HHC:31929 the delay mainly because of the reason that while seeking condonation of delay, a false plea was taken with incorrect statement made in the application. It is apt to reproduce para 12 of the judgment which reads thus: “12 The Law & Judiciary Department as early as on 13.4.2000, i.e. to say within the period of 15 days from the date of the award of the Reference Court, communicated its decision to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference Court and communicated the same to all the concerned including the beneficiary of the acquisition. It is not the case that the Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication. Having received the said communication, the respondent did not act in the matter and initiate any steps for filing the appeals if it was really aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court. There is no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the respondent made a totally incorrect statement in the application filed in the High Court. We express our reservation as to the manner in which a public authority conducted itself in its anxiety to somehow get the relief from the court. In our considered opinion, the incorrect statement made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his part by condoning delay. 17. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & anr, (2010) 5 SCC 459, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the explanation offered for condonation of delay appears to be incorrect, false or there being no sufficient cause, the delay should not be condoned. 18. Once it is established on record that the case set-up by the applicant is based on false and inconsistent statements, then no indulgence can be shown to such litigants. Once it is found that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is incorrect and false, then the delay should not be condoned. 8 2026:HHC:31929 18. Once it is established on record that the case set-up by the applicant is based on false and inconsistent statements, then no indulgence can be shown to such litigants. Once it is found that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is incorrect and false, then the delay should not be condoned. 14. In the present case also, the applicant is trying to take advantage of the negligence of his learned counsel and has made the false plea before the Court that he was not aware of the pendency of the cases filed by him; therefore, he cannot be held entitled to the condonation of the delay. Hence, this issue is answered in the negative and decided against the applicant. Issues No. 2 15. The application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which is fully maintainable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; therefore, this issue is answered against the respondent. Issue No. 3 16. The applicant has made false pleas before the Court and is not entitled to the condonation of the delay. This issue is answered in favour of the respondent. 9 2026:HHC:31929 Final order: 17. In view of the above, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. Cr. AST No. 5668 of 2021 18. Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the present proposed appeal is also disposed of as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 31st July,2026 (Ravinder)