'Classic Case Of Abuse Of Procedural Law': Delhi High Court Slaps ₹50,000 Costs On Accused For Delaying Trial Since 2016

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of ₹50,000 on an accused for repeatedly attempting to stall a criminal trial pending since 2016, describing the case as a “classic case of abuse of the procedural law.”

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed a petition filed by the accused challenging orders of the trial court and sessions court that had closed his opportunity to cross-examine the complainant in a criminal complaint case instituted in July 2016.

The Court noted that the accused had repeatedly been granted indulgence by both the trial court and higher courts but failed to avail those opportunities.

Tracing the litigation history, the Court recorded that after appearing before the trial court in December 2016, the accused took multiple adjournments before notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed in July 2017. Even thereafter, he repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant despite several opportunities.

The High Court noted that the accused was ultimately declared an absconder in February 2020, though that order and an earlier order closing his right to cross-examine were later set aside by the High Court in 2022.

However, despite being granted fresh opportunities, the accused again failed to cross-examine the complainant, leading the trial court in May 2023 to once more close his opportunity.

The accused again approached the sessions court, which granted yet another opportunity subject to payment of ₹10,000 costs. But even then, he failed to appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing.

The High Court further noted that while challenging the trial court order before the sessions court, the accused raised a false plea claiming he could not attend court because he had to admit his maternal uncle to hospital as the uncle's son was not in town.

The sessions court discovered from hospital records that the uncle's son was in fact present at the hospital, thereby exposing the explanation as false.

The accused had also sought condonation of delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that his daughter's death had caused him mental distress. However, the sessions court found that the daughter had passed away nearly a year earlier than projected in the plea.

Thus rejecting the challenge, the High Court observed,

“This is a classic case of abuse of the procedural law, whereby the petitioner has been repeatedly trying to stall trial of the criminal complaint case…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 Court further remarked that the petition was 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.”

Holding that no infirmity existed in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed the accused to deposit ₹50,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.

Appearance: Mr. Krishna Kumar Keshav, Advocate for Petitioner

Case title: Azad Saifi v. Akhtar Ali

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 3689/2026

Click here to read order