Delhi District Court
Daulat Ram Gaur vs State Through Sho on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) SOUTH WEST: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
CR No.717/2025
CNR No.DLSW01-013437-2025
Daulat Ram Gaur,
S/o Sh. Udaram,
R/o VPO Beenjhbayala, Tehsil Padampur,
District Shri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
..... Revisionist
Versus
1. State,
Through SHO,
PS Chhawla.
2. Reeta Namdev,
W/o Sh. Daulat Ram Gaur,
Khaira Gaon Extn. (Eld./130),
Near Petrol Pump, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
.....Respondents
Date of Institution of the revision : 16.12.2025
Date of Arguments : 17.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2025
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court)-01, South-West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in Cr.Case No.8523/2017 titled as 'Daulat Ram Gaur' .
CR No.717/2025 Page 1 of 9Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
2. Revisionist herein shall be referred as 'accused' and respondent no.2 shall be referred as 'complainant' as were addressed before the Ld. Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Sh. Virender Singh, ld. counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 498A IPC by the learned Trial Court and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence way back in the year 2019.
4. Ld. counsel has further argued that barring one or two occasions, the accused had never sought any adjournment during the trial and despite that unreasonable and unjustifiable cost has been imposed upon the accused who cannot see since his birth. Ld. counsel has further argued that on 14.02.2025, counsel for accused was busy in Hon'ble Supreme Court and a passover was sought but the learned Trial Court imposed heavy cost of Rs.5000/- and did not passover the matter for post-lunch session. Ld. counsel has further argued that an application for waiver of cost was moved on 24.05.2025. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2025 at 11.30 am, however, since counsel for accused had to appear before different Courts in Tis Hazari, he requested for a passover till 1.00 pm but without hearing the counsel, his application seeking waiver of cost was dismissed and further cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed.
5. Ld. counsel for accused has argued that cost of Rs.5,000/-
CR No.717/2025 Page 2 of 9Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
imposed vide order dated 14.02.2025 has already been paid and by way of present revision petition, the accused is praying for waiver of excessive cost of Rs.5000/- imposed vide order dated 03.09.2025. Ld. counsel has further argued that cost imposed upon the accused, that too upon an indigent person who is unable to see since birth, is exorbitant and excessive. Ld. counsel has further argued that the impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the revision petition be allowed.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Vijender Singh Kharb, ld. Addl. PP for the State/R-1 and Sh. Raj Kumar Mittal, ld. counsel for complainant/respondent no.2 have argued that the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is a well reasoned order and does not warrant any interference by this Court and therefore, the revision petition be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully including the Trial Court Record.
8. Before coming to the merits of the case, it is necessary to discuss the provision of Section 438 of BNSS (corresponding Section 397 CrPC). Section 438 of BNSS provides 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 CR No.717/2025 Page 3 of 9 Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
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 439.
(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.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the scope of revision under the old law (under Section 397 CrPC), in State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkhan Mehdu AIR 2017 SC 796, held that "the scope of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding".
10. In another case Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the scope of revision under the old law (under Section 397 CrPC) held that "the revisional Court is empowered to call for and CR No.717/2025 Page 4 of 9 Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
examine the records of the inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. Object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law".
11. Perusal of Trial Court Record reveals that both the parties are suffering from visual impairment. Charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC was framed against the accused on 05.07.2019 and the matter was listed for P.E. Thereafter, on one of the dates of hearing, the complainant sought adjournment which was duly allowed and after that, COVID-19 Pandemic started. The effective hearing in the matter then took place on 03.08.2022 wherein the complainant was again absent. The examination-in-chief of the complainant took place from November, 2022 till March, 2024. On 13.03.2024, remaining examination-in-chief and part cross examination of the complainant was recorded and remaining evidence was deferred. On the next two dates of hearing, the complainant did not turn up. On 14.02.2025, complainant was present but a passover was sought. It is recorded in the order that two passovers were sought and thereafter, adjournment was sought at around 12.00 noon. Ld. counsel for accused has made submissions which are contrary to the proceedings recorded in the order dated 14.02.2025. Ld. counsel has submitted that only passover was sought and no adjournment was sought. On 14.02.2025, ld. Trial Court imposed cost of Rs.5000/- keeping in view the fact that the complainant was differently abled. It is pertinent to mention here CR No.717/2025 Page 5 of 9 Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
that both the parties are suffering from visual impairment and are differently abled persons. On the next date of hearing i.e. 25.03.2025, the complainant was present and she was partly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused and remaining cross examination was deferred due to paucity of time and not on account of any request made by ld. counsel for the accused and next date was given of 24.05.2025. On that day, an application seeking waiver of cost was moved by ld. counsel for accused which was listed for next date. On the next date of hearing also, no substitute APP was assigned and therefore, evidence of complainant could not be recorded. It is pertinent to note that counsel for accused was duly present in the Court on that date. Therefore, the adjournment on the said date was not on account of non-appearance of counsel for the accused. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 03.09.2025, the complainant was present, however, the passover was sought till 12.30 pm. Again at 12.35 pm, passover was sought stating that the counsel was coming from Tis Hazari Court. At 12.35 pm, ld. Trial Court passed the following order:-
"AT 12:35 PM Present : Ms. Aradhana Pandit, ld. APP for the State.
Mr. Raj Kumar Mittal and Ms. Bharti Kapil, ld. counsel for complainant. Accused appeared through VC.
PW Rita in person.
Accused has sought further passover till 2 PM by stating that his counsel is coming from Tis Hazari Court. The same is disallowed considering the physical disability of the PW Rita and since she has been CR No.717/2025 Page 6 of 9 Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
waiting since 11:30 AM (time already fixed on the LDOH at joint request), cost of Rs.5000/- is being imposed upon the accused that has to be paid by him to the PW Rita on the NDOH.
Also, in view of the conduct of the accused, his earlier application seeking waiver of cost is hereby dismissed considering that the matter relates back to the year 2017 and complainant/PW Rita in the present case is disabled. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is given to the accused to appear on the NDOH and to cross examine the PW Rita on the NDOH only after payment of cost (Rs.10,000/-) including today's cost on the NDOH.
Accused is directed to remain personally present in the Court on next date of hearing.
Put up for remaining cross examination of PW Rita on 28.10.2025.
PW Rita is bound down for NDOH."
12. The reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that a request for passover was made, however, it was observed that considering the physical disability of complainant and the fact that she was waiting since 11.30 am, which was the time already fixed on the last date of hearing at joint request of ld. counsels for parties, another cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon the accused and the pending application seeking waiver of the earlier cost was also dismissed without hearing the counsel for the accused.
13. Undoubtedly, on 03.09.2025 ld. counsel for the accused was not present at the time which was taken jointly by both the parties on the last date of hearing, however, the fact remains that CR No.717/2025 Page 7 of 9 Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
counsel for accused never sought any adjournment on that day and was requesting to give a passover. The conduct of the accused from the last proceeding sheets nowhere reflects that he was trying to delay the proceedings in any manner whatsoever. The proceeding sheets reflect that sometimes complainant was not present due to some reasons and on few dates, counsel for accused did not appear. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that delay in any manner had occurred on account of non-appearance of counsel for the accused to cross examine the complainant. It is a matter of record that complainant had already been cross examined and discharged. The bonafides of the accused is also reflected from the fact that half of the cost i.e. cost of Rs.5000/- imposed vide order dated 14.02.2025 has already been paid by the accused. It is a matter of fact that no opportunity to address arguments on the application seeking waiver of the cost was given by ld. Trial Court to counsel for the accused.
14. In view of the discussion made above, the revision petition is allowed. Cost of Rs.5000/- imposed upon the accused vide order dated 03.09.2025 stands waived.
15. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.
16. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 19.12.2025 i.e. the date already fixed before learned Trial Court.
CR No.717/2025 Page 8 of 9Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.
17. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of this order be sent back to learned Trial Court for information.
18. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court on Digitally signed
VANDANA by VANDANA
Dated : 17.12.2025 JAIN
JAIN
Date: 2025.12.17
16:12:33 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This order contains nine (9) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.17 16:12:37 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi CR No.717/2025 Page 9 of 9 Daulat Ram Gaur vs. State & Anr.