Delhi District Court
Anand Vishal vs Surendra Verma on 20 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-019303-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 558/2024
DR. ANAND VISHAL,
R/o. 48C, MIG, DDA,
Rani Jhansi, DDA Complex,
Paharganj,
New Delhi-110001. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SHRI. SURENDER VERMA,
R/o. 48D, MIG, DDA Rani Jhansi,
DDA Complex, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110001.
2. MS. REKHA VERMA,
R/o. 48C, MIG, DDA Rani Jhansi,
DDA Complex, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110001. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 09.12.2024
Date of institution : 10.12.2024
Date when judgment was reserved : 24.01.2026
Date when judgment is pronounced : 20.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS')/pari materia with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), against the order dated 02.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'), passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01/Ld. ACMM-01, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. ACMM') in case bearing, 'Anand Vishal v. Surendra CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 1 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.02.20 16:11:45 +0530 Verma & Anr., Ct. Case No. 11625/2019', in a complaint proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sections 499/500/501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said complaint for non- prosecution and non-appearance of the revisionist. Significantly, by means of the present revision petition, the revisionist has inter alia sought setting aside of the said order/impugned order dated 02.04.2024, passed by the Ld. Trial Court and restoration of the said complaint to its original number and stage/position.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings is the complaint, filed by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court in terms of the provisions under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 499/500/501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Pertinently, under the said complaint, the revisionist inter alia proclaimed that he/the revisionist is a Doctor by profession and was practicing Medicine for around ten years, at the time of filing of the instant complaint. The revisionist further asserted under his complaint that at that point in time, he was employed at the Department of Medicine, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute/ABVIMS') and Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the 'RML Hospital') as Associate Professor. It was further chronicled under the revisionist's complaint that he was teaching the students of Post-Graduate Course at the said Institute and RML Hospital, as well as engaged in treatment of large number of patients in the Outpatient Department/OPD and other patients admitted in said Hospital. Congruently, it was avowed by the revisionist that on several occasions, he was engaged in serving several esteemed patients, CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 2 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20 16:11:50 +0530 VVIPs, etc. It was further asserted by the revisionist under his complaint that he was constrained to file the said complaint proceedings against the defamatory acts of the respondents. In particular, the revisionist proclaimed under his said complaint that respondent no. 1, by deploying phone number bearing; 9818334001, created a WhatsApp group, titled as; ' Eastern Society 39-70', comprising of a large number of residents of MIG DDA Flats, Rani Jhansi, DDA Complex, including the revisionist herein. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, respondent no. 1, by abusing the said WhatsApp group, published voice clip of his/respondent no. 1's sister, i.e., of respondent no. 2, wherein she/respondent no. 2 made accusations against the revisionist for killing street dog in an extremely defamatory manner. Pertinently, to note that as per the revisionist, the said clips and text, published on the aforesaid WhatsApp group were extremely objectionable, malicious, concocted, slanderous and deceptive in as much as they blamed/accused/indicted the revisionist of killing a street dog or to the effect that the revisionist was in the business of killing or that the revisionist had run away with his family, after killing a dog or that the revisionist was an expert of poison, etc. Congruently, as per the revisionist, respondent no. 1 also posted voice clips on the said WhatsApp group, where respondent no. 2 reiterated same accusations against the revisionist. 2.1. Markedly, the revisionist further asserted under his said complaint that the imputations were made by the respondents with a calculated/devious endeavor to inflict deliberate injury to his/the revisionist's good reputation and that by labelling the revisionist as a person, engaged in the ' business of killing', the respondents have striven to associate the revisionist with anti-
social elements. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, the CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 3 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20 16:11:54 +0530 respondents deliberately posted several messages in the said WhatsApp group, with defamatory tenor, misgivings and testaments of scripture, directed solely to malign the reputation/good name of the revisionist. As per the revisionist, several of his colleagues resided in the same locality/society, where he/the revisionist resided and that some of the revisionist's colleagues were also subscribers/members of the said WhatsApp group, bearing; 'Eastern Society 39-70' and that the said imputations, resulted in tarnishing the reputation/character of the revisionist among his colleagues, besides caused irreparable injury to his/the revisionist's reputation. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, such imputations besides being grossly malicious in nature, were not covered under any of the exceptions of the provisions under Section 499 IPC. On the contrary, as per the revisionist, such allegations by the respondents were not only patently false and made/directed in personal capacity against the revisionist, solely to malign his reputation, rather, the same have also caused grave injury/harm to the revisionist, by lowering his/revisionist's reputation in the society. Ergo, as aforenoted, under such facts and circumstances, the instant complaint came to be filed by the revisionist against the respondents before the Ld. Trial Court.
2.2. Remarkably, upon such complaint being filed and upon the revisionist's tendering pre-summoning evidence, the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 17.02.2021, took cognizance of the offence under Section 499 IPC and issued summons against respondent no. 1. Apposite here, to reproduce the relevant extracts of the said order dated 17.02.2021 of the Ld. Trial Court, as under;
"... In nutshell, it is the case of the complainant CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 4 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:11:58 +0530 that accused no.1 and accused no.2 are using phone no. 9818334001 and they have posted highly defamatory message on the group of their society. It was not specifically mentioned in the complaint or the evidence as to who between two accused was using the above mobile number or holder of the same. On the previous date complainant placed on record a copy of printout taken from true caller app in which it was mentioned that above mobile number was in the name of accused Surender Kumar Verma.
After considering the complaint and documents annexed with and testimony of complainant CW-1 Dr Anand Vishal this court is of the opinion that prima-facie the whatsapp messages are defamatory. There is sufficient material on record to summon accused Surender Kumar Verma for committing offence U/s 499/500 IPC. However, complainant has failed to place on record any sufficient material to make a prima-facie case against accused no.2. Accordingly, accused no.1 Surender Kumar Verma is summoned U/s 499/500 IPC on filing PF/RC.
Be listed for ..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 entered appearance before the Ld. Trial Court on 14.12.2021 and the matter was directed to be listed for pre-charge evidence/consideration on charge. Thereafter, the matter was listed for pre-charge evidence/further proceedings on 29.03.2022, 09.06.2022, 23.07.2022, 11.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 31.03.2023, 07.07.2023, 23.09.2023, 08.10.2023, 20.10.2023, 11.01.2024, and 02.04.2024. Markedly, on 23.09.2023, 08.10.2023, 20.10.2023, 11.01.2024, and 02.04.2024, the revisionist did not enter appearance before the Ld. Trial Court. Appositely, on 02.04.2024 neither the revisionist entered appearance nor was he represented, leading to the Ld. Trial Court, dismissing the said complaint vide order of the even date/order dated 02.04.2024/impugned order, inter alia under the following observations;
"...02.04.2024 CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 5 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:02 +0530 Present: None for complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 Surender Verma.
Perusal of the record shows, that none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 08.10.2023.
Perusal of the record further shows, that vide order dated 11.01.2024, complainant was granted last and final opportunity to appear and pursue the matter diligently but despite that none is present on behalf of complainant.
Be awaited. Put up at 12 p.m.
*** *** ***
At 12 p.m.
Present: None for complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
accused no. 1 Surender Verma.
Put up at 2:00 p.m.
*** *** ***
At 2:15 p.m.
Present: None for complainant.
Put up at 4:00 p.m.
*** *** ***
At 4:00 p.m.
Present: None for complainant.
It is revealed that none is appearing for the complainant since morning. It seems that complainant is not interested in further prosecution of the application/complaint. In view of the same, the application/complaint is dismissed in default for non- appearance/non-prosecution.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance as per rules..."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist outrightly contended that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court without properly appreciating the facts of the present case as well as by wrongly applying the law. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order is wrong and contrary to settled law and has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court, in extreme haste as well as mechanically, without due application of mind to the factual and CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 6 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:06 +0530 legal position. As per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court, while passing the order of dismissal of the revisionist's complaint failed to consider that the non-appearance of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court was pursuant to the Ld. Counsel's father's ill-health. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that he was under tremendous pressure due to his father's ill-health and was unable to attend the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, either in person or through an associate, to represent him before the Ld. Trial Court. Congruently, it was argued that due to his father's ill-health and subsequent demise, neither the Ld. Counsel appear before the Ld. Trial Court nor arrange for an associate to represent him before the Ld. Trial Court. Ergo, it was submitted that there was no lapse on the part of the revisionist or his Ld. Counsel and that the lapse, if any, part of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, cannot be attributed to the revisionist herein.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that even otherwise, the revisionist was also engaged/engrossed/busy in his professional duty and, had obtained an oral exemption from the court to appear only when it was required. Correspondingly, it was submitted that the revisionist was solely dependent on his counsel, for representation in the said complaint proceedings. It was further submitted that in light of the foregoing circumstances, i.e., inability of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist to enter before the Ld. Trial Court due to his/Ld. Counsel's father's ill-health and eventual demise, as well as of the revisionist's unawareness of the said fact, consequent non-appearance of the revisionist as well as his Ld. Counsel before the Ld. Trial Court, no fault ought to have been attributed to the revisionist in the instant case. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the Ld. Trial CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 7 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20 16:12:10 +0530 Court passed the impugned order, oblivious to the fact that in case the culprits remain exonerated/unpunished, they would commit further offences/crime against other persons in future. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, while passing the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence committed by the respondents, besides, also failed to consider that dismissal of the revisionist's complaint would provide further impetus to the respondents to repeat their acts in future. 3.2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in an extremely mechanical manner, without appreciating the gravity of offence. Congruently, it was argued/reiterated that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the gravity of offence committed by both the respondents nor the impact/irreparable injury, resultant to the revisionist and his family members, owing to the said act. As per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court, was against all cannons of justice, besides, being grossly unjust, unethical, irrational and unreasonable. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider that there was no reason for the revisionist, not to appear before the Ld. Trial Court or being uninterested in pursuing the complaint proceedings, especially when the deliberate conduct of respondents led to causing grave/irreparable loss to the revisionist. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the bar of the provisions under Section 256 Cr.P.C.
are not applicable to the present case and that this Court is within its jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order, in the interest of justice. Correspondingly, it was reiterated that the reasons for non- appearance of the Ld. Counsel before the Ld. Trial Court was attributed to the ill-health of the erstwhile counsel of the revisionist CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 8 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.02.20 16:12:13 +0530 and that the omission, if any, on the part of counsel cannot be attributed to the revisionist. Further, it was argued that due to omission on the part of the Ld. Counsel, the perpetrator of offence need not be let free in the present case, else the same would cause irreparable injury/harm. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel fervently asserted that the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order, oblivious of the facts of the present case, settled judicial precedents as well as legal provisions, deserving the same to be set aside at the outset. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in Bachittar Singh v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del. 468; Ram Yagya v. State of U.P., 1983 Crl. L.J. (NOC) 87 (All.); and Shri Prakash Gandhi v. Shri T.G. Veeraprasad, 2013 (3) AKR 437.
4. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and, as such, deserves no interference by this Court. It was further submitted that no irregularity, impropriety, or incorrectness can be attributed to the impugned order, which was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, cognizant of the principles of law, as well as wary of the facts and circumstances brought forth. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the revisionist cannot escape his responsibility of appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, attributing delay to the illness of his Ld. Counsel's father. As per the Ld. Counsel, liability to pursue litigation lies with a litigant and the revisionist has failed to demonstrate any reason, attributing any illegality/impropriety to the impugned order. Even otherwise, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the revisionist has failed to even prima facie make out/demonstrate any cognizable offence in the instant case. In this regard, it was CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 9 of 20 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.02.20 16:12:18 +0530 vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel that no defamatory article/material was published by the respondents, rather, as per the Ld. Counsel, the complaint proceedings were initiated by the revisionist solely to harass the respondents. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, instant petition is not maintainable as barred by the provisions under Section 256 Cr.P.C. As per the Ld. Counsel, due to the repeated absence of the revisionist, the Ld. Trial Court had duly dismissed the revisionist's complaint and that the same cannot be reagitated by means of the present petition. Ergo, it was argued that the instant petition amounts to gross abuse of process of law, deserving its outright dismissal. Correspondingly, it was argued that the present petition is patently barred by limitation. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents entreated that the instant petition be dismissed as misconceived and ill-conceived. In support of said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025 dated 12.09.2025 (SC); Thirunagalingam v. Lingeshwaran, S.L.P. (C) No. 17575/2023 dated 13.05.2025 (SC); Isha Bhattacharjaa v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, C.A. 8183-84/2011 dated 13.09.2013 (SC); Subhash Chand v. State, AIR 2013 SC 395; Sunita Gupta v. Lalit Kumar Singh, C.R. No. 316/2023 dated 15.05.2023 (Ld. ASJ) and Kishant Kumar v. Hans Kumar, C.R. No. 37/2025 dated 15.01.2022 (Ld. ASJ).
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and that of Ld. Counsel for the respondents have been heard as well as the record(s), including the Trial Court record(s), written arguments as well as case laws, placed on record have been thoroughly perused.
CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.02.20 16:12:23 +0530
6. Before proceeding further with the determination of the rival contentions of parties, i.e., Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for the respondents, this deems it apposite to outrightly refer and reproduce the provisions under law/Section 438 BNSS1, as under;
"438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
*** *** *** (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite manifest that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of the parties, only in the instances where there is a palpable error, non- compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, 1 Pari materia provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which provides, "397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.***Explanation - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.***(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding..." (Emphasis supplied) CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 11 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20 16:12:27 +0530 (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
(pari materia with Section 438 BNSS), observed as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Analogously, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC Online Del 1192 , in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 12 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:31 +0530 evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations", the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re- consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC Online Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded the law, as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Ergo, being wary of the foregoing, this Court observes at the outset that the question that outrightly falls for consideration before this Court pertains to the maintainability of 2 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP
958.
CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 13 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.02.20 16:12:36 +0530
the present revision petition against the impugned order, dismissing the revisionist's complaint for non-prosecution, post summons were issued qua respondent no. 1. In other words, this Court would proceed with determining, 'whether the dismissal of the revisionist's complaint, after summoning of the respondent/accused can be challenged by way of a criminal revision?'. However, in order to deal with the said issue, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/Cr.P.C. (as in vogue at the time, when the impugned order came to be passed), as under;
"2043. Issue of process-***(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.*** *** *** *** 2564. Non-appearance or death of complainant-
(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:
Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may, dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-
appearance of the complainant is due to his death."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Markedly, it is seen from above that Cr.P.C. envisages a situation of dismissal of criminal complaint for the 3 Pari materia with Section 227 BNSS.
4Pari materia with Section 279 BNSS.
CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 14 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:40 +0530
reason(s) of non-payment/deposit of process fees or other fees, within a reasonable time, under Section 204, thereof. In contrast, Section 256 Cr.P.C. envisions a situation where the summons have been issued on the complaint and on the date appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not enter appearance, either in person or through complainant's appointed counsel. Under such situation, law/Section 256 Cr.P.C. confers power on the court/Magistrate to acquit such an accused. Unmistakably, the difference between the said two provisions is quite apparent, i.e., while the former provision deals with a situation prior to the summoning of an accused, in contrast, the latter provision deals with a case, subsequent to issuance of such summoning. Here, this Court deems it apposite to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kalpana Tyagi v. Sneh Lata Sharma, 2003 (68) DRJ 14: 2003 Cri. LJ 3395, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while expounding the appropriate legal recourse, available in the aforenoted two situations, remarked as under;
"8. A distinction, therefore, has to be drawn in regard to the complaints dismissed prior to the summoning of an accused and those dismissed subsequent to the summoning of the accused if a complaint is dismissed prior to the summoning of an accused the order may be challenged by way of filing a revision but once Section 256 comes into play, the dismissal of a complaint has the effect of acquittal of an accused and only an appeal can be filed under Section 378 of the Code to challenge his acquittal."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. M.P.S. Chawla, (1998) 92 Comp. Cas 686 (HP): (1997) 2 Crimes 591 (H&P): 1996 SCC Online HP 54, noted in akin context, as CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 15 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20 16:12:44 +0530 under;
"12. There is no denying that the dismissal of the complaint in default under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, entails the acquittal of the accused. Once an accused has been acquitted of the offence, the law provides a remedy by way of an appeal against the order of acquittal. Once a remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the failure of the petitioner to avail of such a remedy, this court is not to exercise the inherent powers for interfering with the impugned order..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, when the facts of the present case are conscientiously analysed, it is observed that the Ld. Trial Court under its order dated 02.04.2024 duly noted that the none had been appearing on behalf of the revisionist, since 08.10.2023 and that even on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 11.01.2024, last and final opportunity was granted to the revisionist to pursue its matter diligently. Thereafter, the Ld. Trial Court, only at 04:00 p.m., proceeded to note the disinclination of the revisionist to pursue its said complaint and dismiss the same, considering such disinterest of the revisionist. Quite evidently, it is seen in light of the above that once the summons were issued against respondent no. 1 by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 17.02.2021, whereupon the said respondent entered appearance before the Ld. Trial Court on 14.12.2021 and the matter listed on several dates, i.e., on 29.03.2022, 09.06.2022, 23.07.2022, 11.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 31.03.2023, 07.07.2023, 23.09.2023, 08.10.2023, 20.10.2023, 11.01.2024, and 02.04.2024 for pre- charge evidence/further proceedings, the eventual dismissal of the revisionist's complaint for non-prosecution and non-appearance, amounts to an order under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, legal provisions as CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 16 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:48 +0530 well as judicial precedents cited herein, there remains no doubt that present revision petition is not maintainable because the effect of the impugned order was acquittal of respondent no. 1 herein and, as aforenoted, such an order cannot be challenged by way of criminal revision.
14. As a concluding remark, this Court deems it apposite to note that against the order dated 02.04.2024/impugned order, the present revision petition was preferred by the revisionist only on 09.12.2024, with a delay of 161 (one hundred and sixty one) days. Apposite to outrightly note that as per Article 131 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Limitation Act'), a period of 90 (ninety) days, from the date of the order sought to be challenged, has been prescribed as the statutory period of limitation. Markedly, in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, accompanying the present revision petition, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has entreated for condonation of delay in preferring the instant revision petition, inter alia professing, as under;
"...2. That while matter was in evidence the father of the Counsel fell ill and the counsel become busy with his father as he is the lone male issue of his parents. The counsel were in touch with the revisionist and assuring that he will handle the matter once his father was recovered, and the revisionist were believing him. In the meantime the matter was dismissed in default as mentioned above, and in the month of August the father of the counsel died after prolong illness. Than the counsel went to his home town Bihar and further stayed around one month to perform the customary right. After coming back the counsel return the file as he shall unable to pursue the case further hence the revisionist engaged the new counsel and file the present revision. The previous counsel is ready to furnish the affidavit stating the delay caused by him. The copy of the death certificate is attached herewith as Annexure R4(colly)
3. That after returning the file the applicant was searching the advocate and he was busy I his CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 17 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:52 +0530 professional life to. It takes considerable time to find advocate and who prepared the revision and file it.
4. That all this took a considerable time to file the above revision Petition. Hence the application for exemption.
PRAYER Therefore in the facts and circumstances stated above, Hon'ble Court may 215 kindly be gracious enough to condone the delay of days in filing the above mentioned revision. Any other or further order in the interest of justice..."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Clearly, it is seen from above that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/revisionist has attributed the delay to the ill- health of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, engagement of new counsel for the revisionist as well as engagement of the revisionist in his professional life, leading to delay in preferring the instant revision. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently asserted that the reasons tendered by the revisionists are extremely specious, and the instant petition has been preferred solely to delay the respondents. As per the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the revisionist was not vigilant about his proceedings, disentitling him to claim any relief/indulgence on the aspect of limitation or otherwise from this Court.
16. Appositely, in respect of the foregoing, this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly note that it is conscious of the repeated avowals of the superior courts that there is no presumption under law5 that the delay in approaching courts was deliberate on the part of the litigant and that the courts are advised by superior courts to adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, in variance to, technical interpretation, while considering an entreaty for condonation of delay. However, this Court is equally 5 J.M. Ramachandra & Sons v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1082.
CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 18 of 20
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20
16:12:56
+0530
conscious that the superior courts have also persistently avowed6 that an application for condonation of delay, "should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system." As a corollary, application for condonation of delay, which is drafted in an extremely casual manner so as to even be bereft of material particulars, besides failing to disclose sufficient cause such as a bald statement of a party's taking of opinion from some counsel, cannot, in the considered opinion of this Court be considered to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Ergo, in light of the said principles, when the reasons for condonation of delay are scrupulously analyzed, this Court finds itself difficult to be convinced that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/revisionist has been able to make out 'sufficient cause' for not timely preferring the present revision. Needless to note that not only under either of the applications any date, time or particulars of the revisionist's approaching the new counsel forthcoming, nor are any reasons demonstrable to explain the so called 'busy'/engagement of the revisionist in his professional life so as to not engage a new counsel, after his erstwhile Ld. Counsel had handed over/returned his brief. Clearly, the application has been drafted with utmost casual approach, failing to demonstrate any reasonable/justifiable cause, convincing this Court to grant any relief or indulgence in favour of the revisionist, even on the aspect of delay/limitation at this stage.
17. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discussion and keeping in view the aforenoted judicial precedents, law as well 6 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.
CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 19 of 20 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.02.20 16:12:59 +0530
as the submissions addressed before this Court, this Court unambiguously reiterates that the order dated 02.04.2024, passed by Ld. ACMM-01, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing, 'Anand Vishal v. Surendra Verma & Anr., Ct. Case No. 11625/2019', dismissing the revisionist's complaint for non- prosecution and non-appearance is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, for the aforesaid reasons, besides, as hereinunder noted, the revisionist has failed to convince this Court to grant any relaxation in favour of the revisionist, even on the aspect of delay. Accordingly, in light of the above, this Court unambiguously observes that present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, as not maintainable for the aforenoted reasons, as well as on the aspect of limitation/delay. Apposite to note here that though, this Court holds highest regard for the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, however, none of the said decisions would come to the aid of the revisionist in the manner as averred, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
18. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
19. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.02.20 16:13:04 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 20.02.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 20 of 20