SATPAL AND OTHERS vs VIDHYA BUSHAN AND ANOTHER

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

11



HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU


CRM(M) No. 1146/2025

Uploaded on: 15.10.2026



202

Satpal & Ors. …..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)


Through: Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate.

q
vs


Vidhya Bushan & Anr. .….Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE




ORDER
14.10.2026


01. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have challenged
order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri,
whereby the criminal revision petition challenging order dated 05.12.2022 passed
by the learned Executive Magistrate 1st Class (Tehsildar, Siot) under Sections 145
and 146 CrPC has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
02. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
03. It appears that the petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, challenging order dated 05.12.2022 passed by
the learned Executive Magistrate 1st Class (Tehsildar, Siot) in a proceedings
under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, initiated at the instance of the respondents.
Along with the revision petition, the petitioners also filed an application seeking

2 CRM(M) No. 1146/2025



condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The aforesaid application
came up for consideration before learned Sessions Judge, who, vide impugned
order dated 08.09.2025, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay
and, consequently, the revision petition as well.
04. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Revisional
Court has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners had gained knowledge
of order dated 05.12.2022 on 15.12.2022, which, according to the learned
Sessions Judge, has been admitted by the petitioners in their application seeking
condonation of delay. It has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the
petitioners were unclear about the date on which they came to know about the
passing of order dated 05.12.2022, inasmuch as, at one place, they have admitted
that they came to know about the passing of impugned order on 15.12.2022,
whereas, at another place, they have stated that they came to know about the said
order on 03.06.2024. On this basis, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that
the application seeking condonation of delay had been drafted in a total casual
manner and that cause pleaded by the petitioners could, by no stretch of
imagination, be construed as a “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay.
05. In the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the petitioners before
the learned Sessions Judge seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision
petition, it is nowhere pleaded that the petitioners had gained knowledge about
order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, on 15.12.2022. In paragraph
(03) of the application, the petitioners have claimed that they came to know about
order dated 15.12.2022 (which appears to be a typographical error and ought to be
read as order dated 05.12.2022) when they were cultivating their own land and the
SHO, Police Station Dharamsal, informed them about order dated 15.12.2022

3 CRM(M) No. 1146/2025



(which again appears to be a typographical error and ought to be read as order
dated 05.12.2022). It has been further pleaded by the petitioners in the said
application that they came to know about order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the
learned Executive Magistrate only on 03.06.2024 and that, on the same day, they
applied for a certified true copy of the said order. Thus, a careful reading of the
application makes it clear that the date of knowledge pleaded by the petitioners is
03.06.2024 and not 15.12.2022, as has been recorded by the learned Sessions
Judge.
06. The conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge regarding the date of
knowledge of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate appears to be
based on misreading of paragraph (03) of the application filed by the petitioners.
On this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge
deserves to be set aside.
07 . Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Rajouri, is set aside , and the matter is remanded to the said Court with a
direction to reconsider the application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation
of delay in filing the revision petition on its merits in accordance with law, after
hearing the parties.
08. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Rajouri, on 02.11.2026 . Till then, the interim order dated 07.11.2025 passed by
this Court shall remain in operation. Beyond the said date, it shall be open to the
learned Sessions Judge either extend the aforesaid interim order or to
modify/vacate the said order, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances
of the case.

4 CRM(M) No. 1146/2025



09. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri,
for compliance.
10 . Disposed of.

(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge

Jammu
14.10.2026
binash
A