Only State Or Accused Can Seek Directions For Speedy Trial In Police-Report Cases, Not Victim: Delhi High Court

Update: 2026-01-07 13:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Delhi High Court has held that in cases arising out of a police report, only the State or the accused has the locus to seek directions for expeditious disposal of the trial.Justice Girish Kathpalia clarified that a de facto complainant or victim cannot maintain such a plea.The bench observed,“the subject case being a State case, role of the complainant de facto is limited to being a...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Delhi High Court has held that in cases arising out of a police report, only the State or the accused has the locus to seek directions for expeditious disposal of the trial.

Justice Girish Kathpalia clarified that a de facto complainant or victim cannot maintain such a plea.

The bench observed,

“the subject case being a State case, role of the complainant de facto is limited to being a witness and therefore, it is only the State or the accused who can bring such petition.”

It thus dismissed a petition filed by the complainant seeking directions to the trial court to expedite proceedings in a cheating case registered under Section 420 IPC.

The Court further observed that the complainant can independently sustain action only in situations “explicitly laid down in law”, which did not include seeking directions for speedy trial in a police-report case.

Distinguishing an earlier order relied upon by the Petitioner, the Court noted that the issue of locus had not been examined therein. It was also recorded that no delay on the part of the trial court was evident, as charges were yet to be framed.

Terming the petition “completely frivolous and a drain on already overflowing dockets of the Court”, the Court dismissed it with ₹10,000 costs.

Appearance: Mr. Shiv Chopra, DHCLSC with Ms. Surbhi Arora, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Yashpal Singh, PS Farsh Bazar

Case title: Renuka Jain v. State

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 44/2026

Click here to read order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News