The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 50,000 cost on an accused for his mischievous attempt at protracting the Trial Court proceedings in a criminal case endlessly in the hope that the complainant would give up the lis under frustration.

The High Court highlighted that the instant matter was a classic case of abuse of the procedural law, whereby the petitioner had been repeatedly trying to stall the trial of the criminal complaint case, which was instituted way back in the month of July, 2016.

The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia stated, “The revision petition is not just devoid of merit, but the same is also a mischievous attempt at protracting the trial court proceedings endlessly, awaiting that the respondent/complainant gives up the lis under frustration. So much so, that the petitioner/accused even raised a patently false plea before the Court of Sessions, as described above.”

Advocate Krishna Kumar Keshav represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

In the criminal complaint instituted by the respondent on July 11, 2016, the petitioner/accused was summoned, and he appeared before the Trial magistrate on December 8, 2016. After seven adjournments taken by the petitioner/accused, a notice under Section 251 of the CrPC was framed. The petitioner/accused was given the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, but he remained absent. In 2018, the right of the petitioner/accused to crossexamine the complainant was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused stopped appearing and was ultimately declared an absconder on February 27, 2020.

This order of the Trial Court was challenged by the petitioner/accused, and the High Court set aside the same. The petitioner/accused was granted a number of opportunities to cross-examine the respondent/complainant, which he did not avail and finally, on May 4, 2023, the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/complainant was closed by the Trial Magistrate. The Court of Sessions discovered that the petitioner/accused had raised a false explanation. Holding that no sufficient grounds were made out to condone the delay in filing the revision petition, the Court of Sessions dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the revision petition as well. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “The petitioner was repeatedly granted indulgence by the Court of Sessions as well as this Court and matter was repeatedly remanded, but the petitioner opted not to avail the advantage of that indulgence. Not just this, the petitioner even submitted complete falsehood before the Court of Sessions.”

The Bench held that the petition was a mischievous attempt at protracting the Trial Court proceedings endlessly. The Bench further noted the petitioner's patently false plea before the Court of Sessions.

The Bench thus dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 50,000 to be deposited by the petitioner/accused with DHCLSC within one week.

Cause Title: Azad Saifi v. Akhtar Ali (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4182)

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Girish Kathpalia

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.