LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

VINOD VERMA (C E O)     13 August 2012

Crpc -397

QUASHING OF SUMMONING ORDER BY APPEAL U/S 397 Cr P C

what is the time limit for filing of application for quashing summoning order passed by the lower court, under section 397 of Cr P C in appeal before the Distt./Sessions Judge. Can the Judge condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the permitted period say 90 DAYS, The acciused got bailed himself on 10/05/2010, against the summoning order, and later filed an appeal before the Distt. and Sessions, Judge for quashing the summoning order. The appeal is filed on 28/10/2010, is this MANTAINABLE, should not the Judge have rejected the same right when it was filed with a delay. Has the Judge got powers to condone the delay in filing, even when thereis no application for the condonation of delay. Please ENLIGHTEN me if anyone can, asap. rgds ... litigant



Learning

 9 Replies

surjit singh (Assistant)     13 August 2012

You can file after the limitation period provided you have to explain the day to day delay in your condonation petitoner from the date of passing the order, which should look to be reasonable.

Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 )     13 August 2012

 

 While it definitely pertains to procedural aspects of law, it nonetheless gains prominent owing to the fact that the law of limitation acts as a prescripttion to limit the enforcement of rights and availment of legal remedies. Requiring the litigant to act with diligence, the law of limitation points out to the concerned the time limits within which they should act and also the consequences of such failure. Further, the incumbent courts also ensure that the delay is not condoned in a routine manner and thus rendering the law of limitation meaning less.
 

In this context, the Supreme Court in a recently reported decision in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh (AIR 2010 SC 3043) has revisited the law of limitiation to cull out the principles involved while condoning the delay. 

Pradeep Kumar (Lawyer)     13 August 2012

Dear Sir,

First of all,Section 397 is meant for Revision of order,it can be of Summoning order .This Section is not for appeal or quashing.Now,revision is an option which needs to be filed very carefully,as it can only be filed once.Therefore,you need to be very cautious in going for revision.There is 90 days time limit for going for revision,you can file it ,the moment you find, that certain oder was non-est in law. 

Adv.Pradeep

09871765000

www.pradlaw.com

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     13 August 2012

Limitation for Revision is 90 days as per Article 131 of the LA, but the same can be condoned if the applicant can show sufficient reasons for the delay. There is no suo motu power of the court to condone as condonation has to be moved under section 5 of the LA.

1 Like

venkatesh Rao (Retired Government Servant)     13 August 2012

I fully endorse with the view of lerned adv. Sri Ramachari.  I humbly differ from the views expressed by Pradeep Kumar. Limitation is 90 days. Interlocutory orders are not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. Condonation of delay is both a question of fact and law.  Instances are there where  years of delay is condoned and even three days dealy is not condoned.

1 Like

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     13 August 2012

Another aspect of the matter in your query is that, court order of  summon can not be quash under 397 but only by invoking the inherent power of the Court Under section 482 CrPc.

VINOD VERMA (C E O)     14 August 2012

My millions of thanks to all the members of LCI  for givingme timely replies and to give me strength for fighting against in justice

venkatesh Rao (Retired Government Servant)     14 August 2012

Dear Mr. Assumi,

The power of the court of sessions under 397 is co extensive and concurrent with that of the high court is wide enough to set aside the order of  issuance of summons. 

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     15 August 2012

If criminal case is lunched against the accused without previous Sanction as engrafted under section 197 CrPc, can it be quashed under section 397 CrPc?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query