The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 130-day delay, holding that the applicant can't rely on the plea that his father did not inform him about the hearing date after receiving the court summons. 

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “When the law requires that the summons be left with the adult male member of the family, it is as good as leaving the summons with the applicant, and the plea that the applicant was not told about the date of the hearing by his father will not help him.”

The applicant filed a revision petition, seeking condonation of delay against an order through which his complaint had been dismissed for non-prosecution.

It was contended by him that he did not appear because he was not aware of the hearing date, as his father received the summons and did not inform him about it.

He further contended that he got to know about the dismissal in March 2025 when he contacted his counsel. After which he got copy of the order and filed revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay.

The Court noted that the summons had been served on the applicant's father who resided with him. Reiterating Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court stated that “service of summons on an adult male family member living with the accused is legally valid when the person summoned cannot be found”. 

The Court also remarked that the applicant failed to explain that why did he not inquire about the status of the case for nearly three months after the dismissal of the complaint.

Thus, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Case Name: Kishori Lal v/s Surender Kumar

Case No.: Cr.MP(M) No.1047 of 2025

Date of Decision: 23.02.2026

For the petitioner: Ms. Anu Tuli, Adv.

For the Respondent: Ms.Preetika Thakur, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order