IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

AT: Nampally, Hyderabad

Revision Petition No. of 2013

IN

CC.No. 11 of 2012

Between:

B. Bixamaiah S/o. B.Shankaraiah,

Aged About 42 years, Occ. LIC Agent,
R/o. H.No. 8-4-370/176,
Raj Nagar, Borabonda, Hyderabad-18
... Petitioner/ Complainant
AND

Darmini Gopi Madhusudhan,

S/o. D.Prakasham,
Aged About. , Occ. Business,
R/o. 16-4-234/235, Fort Road,
Warangal-506002.
Respondent /Accused

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION

397 OF CR.P.C

May It Please Your Honour,

The humble petition of the petitioner above named most

respectfully submits:

This is a petition filed against the impugned order dated 06-06-

2012 passed in complaint case No. 11 of 2012 by the learned III
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. By
virtue of the said impugned order, the learned Magistrate has
dismissed the complaint of the petitioner U/s. 204(4) of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner begs to prefer this petition against the order of

the learned Magistrate on the following among other grounds:

Grounds:

1. The order of the lower Court is against law.

2. The lower Court has erred in dismissing the complaint.
The negligent conduct made by clerk, which had put my
client to loss, severe hardship and failure of justice.
3. That the, learned Judge of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court had dismissed my clients complaint
against accused on 06-06-2012 for the reason of not filing
the process, U/s. 204(4) of Cr.P.C.
4. It is respectfully submitted that, previous date of the case
was on 12-03-2012 and on that day the above mentioned
case is not listed and when I, had enquired about the
same the concerned clerk said that case file is missing
and latter on in the day the concerned clerk said that he
will give a date for the case, then my advocate had
requested the concerned clerk to give the same date i.e.
03-07-2012 because a connected case pertaining to same
accused as been posted on that day before the Honble III
A.C.M.M. Court, to which he consented.
5. It is respectfully submitted that, on 03-07-2012 I had
came to court to attend the case and I was shocked to
know that my case had been dismissed for not filing the
process on 06-06-2012.
6. It is respectfully submitted that, A diary proceedings of
the Honble III A.C.M.M court for the date of 12-03-2012
does not have any proceeding for the above mentioned
case i.e., CC.No. 11 of 2012.
7. It is respectfully submitted that, there is no need to file
the process again because the process/summon which
was filed previously was served upon the accused and my
advocate was ready with the memo stating the same on
12-03-2012, but the negligent conduct of the concerned
clerk at the end proved costly to me in reaching the ends
of justice.
8. It is respectfully submitted that, my advocate had filed a
complaint against the concerned clerk on 06-07-2012 and
it is still pending.
 9. It is respectfully submitted that, the Honble III A.C.M.M.
Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint under
Section 204 (4) of the Cr.P.C. simply because the
complainant had not filed the process; instead the Honble
Court may have given a last chance to file the process.
Moreover, there was no requisite of filing the process once
again, because previously issued process had been served
upon the accused.

It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be Pleased to

order TO RESTORE the CC.No. 11 of 2012 on the file of learned
Judge of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Petitioner/ Complainant

Verification

I, B. Bixamaiah, do hereby verify that the contents from paras 1

to ______ are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and
personal belief and no part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therein.

Affirmed at Hyderabad on this day of July, 2013.

Petitioner/ Complainant
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
AT: Nampally, Hyderabad

CRL.M.P.No. OF 2013
IN
Revision Petition No. of 2013
IN
CC.No. 11 of 2012
[On the file of learned Honble III A.C.M.M]

Between:

B. Bixamaiah S/o. B.Shankaraiah,

Aged About 42 years, Occ. LIC Agent,
R/o. H.No. 8-4-370/176,
Raj Nagar, Borabonda, Hyderabad-18
... Petitioner/ Complainant
AND

Darmini Gopi Madhusudhan,

S/o. D.Prakasham,
Aged About. , Occ. Business,
R/o. 16-4-234/235, Fort Road,
Warangal-506002.
Respondent /Accused

PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED

UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT

For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the

petitioner most respectfully prays that this Honble Court may
be pleased to condone the delay of [ ] of days in filing the
revision petition under section 397, and pass such other order
or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.

Place: Hyderabad
Date: Advocate for Petitioner
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
AT: Nampally, Hyderabad

CRL.M.P.No. OF 2013
IN
Revision Petition No. of 2013
IN
CC.No. 11 of 2012
[On the file of Learned Honble III A.C.M.M]

Between:

B. Bixamaiah
... Petitioner/ Complainant
AND

Darmini Gopi Madhusudhan,

Respondent /Accused

AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

I, B. Bixamaiah S/o. B.Shankaraiah, Aged About 42 years,

Occ. LIC Agent, R/o. H.No. 8-4-370/176, Raj Nagar, Borabonda,
Hyderabad-18, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state
on oath a under.

1. I am the Petitioner herein and complainant in main the

complaint filed under section 200 Cr.P.C, R/w 138. I state that I
am aware of the facts and circumstances of this case and
hence competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. I state that for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition,

the petition filed by me under section 397 of Cr.P.C may kindly
be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3. I state that this petition filed against the impugned order

dated 06-06-2012 passed in complaint case No. 11 of 2012 by
the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad. By virtue of the said impugned order, the learned
Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner U/s.
204(4) of Cr.P.C.
4. Due to my advocate waiting for the result of enquiry filed
by him against the concerned bench clerk. I could not file the
revision petition within the stipulated time and a delay of [
] days caused. The delay caused is neither willful nor
intentional, but it is for the above afore said reasons only.

5. I am advised of good case on merits and will be put to

irreparable loss and hardship if the accompanying petition is
not allowed. On the contrary, no hardship or loss would be
caused to respondent if the accompanying petitioner is allowed
and I am allowed to contest the case on merits.

It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to

condone the delay of [ ] days for filing the revision under
section 397 of Cr.P.C and pass such other order or orders as this
Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case

Wherefore, I pray that this Honble Court may be pleased to

ALLOW the accompanying petition as prayed for, in the interest
of justice and equity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
I, B. Bixamaiah, the above named deponent, do hereby verify
on this the ______ day of July, 2013 at Hyderabad that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, information and belief and that nothing
material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
Sworn before me: