Manipur High Court
Waikhom Ranbir Meitei vs Aribam Bankabihari Sharma on 27 July, 2026
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC (Crl A) No.2 of 2025
Waikhom Ranbir Meitei ... Applicant
-Versus-
Aribam Bankabihari Sharma
& 3 Ors ... Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
27.7.2026
Heard Mr.A.Golly, learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr.A.Gautam Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.
By the present application, applicant prays for
condining delay of 167 days in filing the accompanying Cril Appeal.
It is submitted that the present applicant filed a
private complaint before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate
(First Class), Imphal West-II against respondents. It is also stated
that on 21.2.2019 charge under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 34 IPC
was framed against the respondents and matter was proceeded. On
2.4.2024, as none appeared on behalf of the complainant, learned
JMIC Imphal west-II dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.
Thereafter, order dated 2.4.2024 was challenged by the applicant
herein before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West by filing Cril
Revision Case No.11 of 2024 under Sections 397/399 of Cr.P.C.
However by order dated 31.12.2024, learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the revision petition as the same was not maintainable.
Thereafter, applicant approached this Court by filing appeal against
order dated 2.4.2024. While doing so, delay as mentioned above
has already been occurred.
Mr.A.Golly, learned counsel for applicant submits that
dismissal of private complaint for non-prosecution before the
Magistrate, after framing of charge amounts to acquittal, under
Sections 256 of the Cr.P.C and appeal lies to the High Court against
such order, as provided under Sections 378(3) Cr.P.C.
It is submitted that period i.e. from 9.8.2024 to
31.12.2024 (pendency of revision petition before learned Sessions
Judge) being before wrong forum, would be excluded by the
provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the
circumstance, it is submitted that actual delay is for 30 (thirty) days
in all, after excluding the period spent before wrong forum and time
taken in getting certified copy. It is prayed that actual delay of thirty
days may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merit.
On the other hand, Mr.A.Gautam Sharma, learned
counsel for respondents submits that even though there are some
unfounded allegations against respondents, delay may be condoned
on imposition of cost.
This Court has perused the materials on record and
major portion of time is taken in getting Certified Copy of the
impugned order dated 2.4.2024 passed by learned JMIC, Imphal
West-II dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution and agitating
before wrong forum.
In the circumstance, delay is condoned subject to
payment of Rs.2,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Bar Association,
Manipur.
On submission of proof of payment of cost of
Rs.2,000/-, Registry is directed to number the accompanying Special
Leave for Appeal, if the same is in order, and list before the
appropriate Bench.
With the above observation, Misc Case is allowed.
JUDGE
Priyojit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT
PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2026.07.28
SINGH 14:32:06 +05’30’
