Azad Saifi vs Akhtar Ali
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12.05.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 & CRL.M.A. 14961/2026
AZAD SAIFI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Krishna Kumar Keshav,
Advocate.
versus
AKHTAR ALI .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. 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, which was instituted way back in the month of July, 2016. 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.
CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 Page 1 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.12 05:50:18 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:12.05.2026
17:59:22
With this backdrop, in pre-lunch session I heard Mr. K. K. Keshav,
Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and at his request I passed over the
matter to this post lunch session so that the vakalatnama signatory counsel
Ms. Tanya Aggarwal would appear and address arguments. But even in this
post lunch session, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Advocate has opted not to appear.
Mr. K. K. Keshav, Advocate submits that since he is a signatory to the
petition, he may be heard. As such I have heard him at length.
2. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for this case are as
follows.
2.1 In the criminal complaint instituted by the present respondent on
11.07.2016, the petitioner/accused was summoned and he appeared before
the trial magistrate on 08.12.2016.
2.2 After as many as seven adjournments taken by the petitioner/accused,
notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed on 19.07.2017.
2.3 The petitioner/accused was given opportunity to cross-examine the
complainant, but he absented on 14.09.2017 and thereafter on 18.11.2017
also he sought adjournment.
2.4 Finally, on 13.12.2018, right of the petitioner/accused to cross-
examine the complainant was closed.
2.5 Thereafter, the petitioner/accused stopped appearing and was
ultimately declared as an absconder on 27.02.2020.
CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 Page 2 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.12 05:50:07 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:12.05.2026
17:59:22
2.6 The order dated 27.02.2020 of the trial court was challenged by the
petitioner/accused before this Court, and vide order dated 18.10.2022 of this
Court, the trial court order dated 27.02.2020 as well as order dated
13.12.2018 were set aside.
2.7 Again, petitioner/accused was granted a number of opportunities to
cross-examine the respondent/complainant, which he did not avail and
finally on 04.05.2023, once again opportunity to cross-examine
respondent/complainant was closed by the learned trial magistrate.
2.8 The petitioner/accused once again challenged that order dated
04.05.2023 by way of revision proceedings, which were allowed by the
Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.09.2023, granting yet another
opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the
respondent/complainant subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
2.9 But once again the petitioner/accused did not appear on 17.02.2024
and his counsel sought adjournment to cross-examine the
respondent/complainant; but since neither the cost was paid nor any reason
was assigned, the learned trial magistrate again closed opportunity to cross-
examine the respondent/complainant.
2.10 Order dated 17.02.2024 of the trial magistrate was again assailed by
way of revision proceedings by the petitioner/accused. In the revision
proceedings, the petitioner/accused submitted that he could not appear
before the trial magistrate on 17.02.2024, because he had to get his maternal
CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 Page 3 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.12 05:49:56 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:12.05.2026
17:59:22
uncle Shaukat Ali admitted in the hospital on 15.02.2024, since son of
Shaukat Ali was not in town. In support of this plea, the petitioner/accused
also filed photocopy of medical record dated 15.02.2024 of Shaukat Ali. It is
on perusal of that medical record, the learned Court of Sessions discovered
that the petitioner/accused had raised a false explanation. For, the medical
record categorically showed presence of son of Shaukat Ali in the hospital
on 15.02.2024. Obviously, the petitioner/accused told a lie before the Court
of Sessions. But even the said revision petition filed by the
petitioner/accused was beyond limitation, so he supported the same with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, pleading that he could not
file the revision petition in time because his maternal uncle passed away on
28.03.2024 and further on account of sudden death of his daughter, he went
into deep mental pain, so he contacted his counsel only in the last week of
May, 2024 but thereafter, summer vacation started. However, after thorough
examination of the trial court record, the learned Court of Sessions
discovered that the unfortunate death of daughter of the petitioner/accused
had occurred way back on 21.04.2023, while his uncle passed away on
28.03.2024. Holding that no sufficient grounds were made out to condone
the delay in filing the revision petition, the learned Court of Sessions
dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
consequently the revision petition as well. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused submits that it was only a
matter of confusion that he took a plea before the Court of Sessions that son
CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 Page 4 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.12 05:49:45 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:12.05.2026
17:59:22
of Shaukat Ali was not in town, and in fact it is only that one of the sons of
Shaukat Ali was not in town. This submission fails to convince. On the other
hand, it would show that there was no necessity for the petitioner/accused to
accompany his maternal uncle to the hospital and consequently there was no
reason for him to not to appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
4. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for
petitioner/accused.
5. I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same
is upheld. 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.
6. Considering the aforesaid, I also called upon learned counsel for
petitioner/accused to address as to the costs to be imposed for filing such
frivolous petition. Learned counsel submits that some nominal cost may be
imposed.
7. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by
the petitioner/accused with DHCLSC within one week. For compliance as
regards to cost, copies of this order be sent to the trial court as well as to the
Secretary, DHCLSC, both of whom shall file their reports within four
weeks.
CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 Page 5 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.12 05:49:35 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:12.05.2026
17:59:22
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
8. Accompanying application also stands disposed of.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.12 05:49:24 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 12, 2026/ dr
CRL.M.C. 3689/2026 Page 6 of 6 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:12.05.2026
17:59:22