Liberty to pursue alternative remedies does not automatically condone delay or circumvent statutory limitation periods.

The dispute originated from an F.I.R. alleging that Respondent No. 2 advanced ₹61,72,980/- to Applicant No. 1’s firm for pomegranate containers, which the applicants failed to supply, subsequently threatening the complainant

Following an investigation and charge sheet, the CJM, Rudrapur, took cognizance on 09.10.2019, and charges were framed on 09.12.2019

The applicants initially challenged these proceedings through C482 applications (Nos. 459 and 805 of 2021), which were dismissed as withdrawn in June 2023, granting liberty to pursue other legal remedies

Consequently, the applicants filed a Revision (Misc. Criminal Case No. 296 of 2023) before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.

On 20.08.2024, the Revisional Court dismissed the case solely because it was barred by the limitation period

The applicants then filed the present application (C528) challenging that dismissal, arguing that the existence of a prior stay order and the liberty granted by the High Court justified a condonation of delay

1. Whether the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the criminal revision on the grounds of limitation despite the applicants being granted liberty by the High Court to pursue alternative remedies

2. Whether the liberty to withdraw a previous application and pursue alternative remedies constitutes a substantive ground to circumvent the statutory period of limitation

The court applied the principles of the Law of Limitation governing criminal revisions. It established that for the condonation of delay, a party must demonstrate "sufficient cause"

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that a judicial order granting "liberty to pursue appropriate remedies" upon the withdrawal of a petition does not inherently include an opinion on, or an automatic grant of, condonation of delay for subsequent filings

The Court observed that the trial was already underway and a prosecution witness (P.W.1) had been examined

In reviewing the procedural history, the Court noted that while a Coordinate Bench had allowed the applicants to withdraw their previous C482 applications to seek other remedies, that Bench explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion regarding the condonation of delay

The Court reasoned that "liberty" granted by a court to pursue other legal avenues cannot be used as a substantive tool to bypass or "circumvent the limitation bar"

Because the applicants failed to demonstrate any "sufficient cause" for the delay and the record showed no prejudice that would justify an extraordinary interference, the Court found the Sessions Judge’s dismissal of the revision to be legally sound

The Court further held that the prior grant of liberty to pursue remedies does not waive the requirements of the Limitation Act

The present criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed for being devoid of merit