RAHUL vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI )

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 29.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 10.12.2025 Judgment uploaded on: 10.12.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 1161/2024, CRL.M.A. 28605/2024 & CRL.M.A. 28607/2024 RAHUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Kochar, Advocate versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J CRL.M.A. 28607/2024 (condonation of delay of 398 days) 1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 398 days in filing the captioned revision petition, wherein the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.05.2023 [hereafter ‗impugned order‘] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 31/2023 [hereafter ‗Trial Court‘], arising out of FIR No. 162/2022 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 392/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter, ‗IPC‘]. Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 1161/2024 Page 1 of 9 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:10.12.2025 19:12:30 2. The petitioner submits that although the impugned order was passed on 10.05.2023, the formal order framing charges against the petitioner was in fact passed only on 30.05.2024, i.e. almost a year later. It is stated that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the reference to Section 397 of IPC in the order dated 10.05.2023 was a typographical error, especially as the learned Trial Court itself had observed in the said order that the ingredients of Section 397 of IPC were not attracted against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitione