[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Vijay Popli vs Sidharth Pareek & Ors on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 & CRL.M.A. 18802/2023 (for stay)
VIJAY POPLI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Gagan
Kumar Singhal, Advocates
versus
SIDHARTH PAREEK & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Respondent No. 1 in person
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 03.07.2025
1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 seeks a writ
of mandamus directing quashing/termination of the proceedings arising out
of a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read
with Sections 500/501/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 bearing CT Case
No. 612892/2016 titled as “Sidhartha Pareek v. The Editor Rashtriya
Sahara & Ors.” The Petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the said
complaint.
2. Without delving into the merits of the case, Mr. Harpreet Singh,
counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the impugned compliant and
1
“Cr.P.C.”
2
“IPC”
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 1 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
the proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed on the ground
of inordinate and deliberate delay in the prosecution of the complaint.
Expounding on this argument, he submits that the impugned complaint was
filed on 17th April, 2000, and the Court took cognizance on 23rd September,
2000 and summoned the accused persons, including the Petitioner.
However, despite the lapse of approximately 25 years, the Complainant has
not concluded his evidence, and the matter has remained pending at the
stage of recording of his statement. He submits that, such a prolonged and
unexplained delay, far from being a mere procedural lapse, has transformed
the proceedings into a source of harassment and undue hardship for the
Petitioner. In his view, this protracted pendency strikes at the core of speedy
trial and renders the continued prosecution oppressive, especially
considering the nature of the alleged offence. Emphasising on this aspect, he
contends that the Courts have recognised inordinate delay in the prosecution
of a complaint as an independent ground for quashing of proceedings, as it
results in abuse of process of law and undermines public confidence in the
justice system. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar3
and Moti Lal Saraf vs. State of J&K.4
3. Mr. Harpreet Singh further highlights that this Court, vide order dated
20th July, 2023, while issuing notice of the instant petition to Respondent
No. 1, had acknowledged the inordinate delay in the trial and directed the
Trial Court to conclude the matter within eight weeks. However, despite
these explicit directions, the proceedings before the Trial Court have
3
(2009) 3 SCC 355.
4
(2006) 10 SCC 560.
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 2 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
remained in limbo. It is pointed out that since the passing of the said order,
the matter has been listed before the Trial Court on approximately 36
occasions; yet the case is far from conclusion as it continues to languish at
the stage of recording of the Complainant’s evidence. It is further submitted
that the Petitioner is suffering from serious liver-related medical ailments,
and has a limited life expectancy. In these circumstances, the prolonged
pendency has compounded his mental agony. Mr. Harpreet Singh urges that
the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation of a fair and expeditious trial has been
frustrated, making it imperative for this Court to intervene and prevent
further abuse of the judicial process.
4. On the other hand, the Complainant/Respondent No. 1, Mr. Sidharth
Pareek, who appears in person, opposes the present petition. While candidly
acknowledging that nearly 25 years have elapsed since the filing of the
complaint, he asserts that the delay is not solely attributable to the
Complainant. He submits that the protracted nature of the proceedings has
been occasioned, in substantial measure, by the conduct of the accused, as
well as by systemic factors and periods when the Trial Court was not
functioning regularly. Mr. Pareek emphasizes that he has always
demonstrated his readiness to proceed, and that any adjournments or
procedural setbacks have not arisen from any dilatory tactics on his part. He
further informs the Court that significant progress has recently been
achieved in the trial: his own testimony has been recorded as CW-1, and the
examination-in-chief of CW-2 and CW-3 has also been completed. The
matter has now been adjourned for cross-examination of these witnesses at
the instance of the accused persons. In light of these circumstances, he
contends that the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner are
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 3 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
distinguishable, and have no application to the facts of the present case. Mr.
Pareek asserts that the Trial Court is now making earnest efforts to expedite
the proceedings, and any interference at this stage would not only be
unwarranted, but also prejudicial to his right to seek redress through due
process.
5. The Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
both parties. At the very outset, it must be emphasised that this Court views
with profound dismay and concern the manner in which the trial has
unfolded. It is indeed a matter of serious introspection that a complaint
instituted as far back as the year 2000 has remained inconclusively pending
for over 25 years. Such an extraordinary and inexplicable delay, particularly
in a criminal proceeding, strikes at the heart of fair trial and undermines
public confidence in the justice delivery system. The sheer length of this
pendency is not merely a procedural aberration, but a reflection of systemic
inertia that warrants close scrutiny. While delay alone is not always
sufficient to quash proceedings, a delay of this magnitude demands a careful
examination of its underlying causes and its impact on the rights of the
accused as well as the integrity of the judicial process.
6. Having expressed its concern regarding the protracted delay in the
conclusion of the trial, the Court now proceeds to examine the underlying
factors contributing to such delay. In this regard, the attention of the Court is
invited to a tabulation in the petition, delineating the status of the
proceedings on various dates before the Trial Court. A perusal of the said
tabulation indicates that on several occasions, the proceedings were
adjourned due to the absence or non-availability of the Complainant.
7. It is pertinent to note that the Compliant was instituted on 17th April,
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 4 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
2000, and summons were issued on 23rd September, 2000. The accused
persons thereafter filed an application seeking recall of the summons, which
came to be dismissed on 30th September, 2004. Subsequently, the accused
persons filed other petitions assailing orders of the Trial Court, which were
either dismissed on merits or dismissed as withdrawn. Eventually, the
charge was framed by the Trial Court by order dated 31st May, 2008, which
was also challenged by the Petitioner and another co-accused. The order was
then set aside by this Court, pursuant to which the Trial Court was directed
to frame a fresh notice in 2009. However, the proceedings thereafter
suffered an inexplicable lapse, as the Complainant’s statement, first recorded
on 30th August, 2008, was not recorded until nearly nine years later, on 1 st
August, 2017.
8. Furthermore, it is pertinent to emphasise that at no point, was there
any stay of the proceedings before the Trial Court. In these circumstances,
there existed no legal impediment preventing the Trial Court from
proceeding with the matter in a timely and efficient manner. Despite this, the
record indicates that the Complainant failed to take any steps for the
continuation of his examination between 2008 and 2017. The tabulation
annexed with the petition reveals that, on several occasions during this
period, the Complainant remained absent before the Trial Court, resulting in
repeated adjournments and the consequent stalling of his examination.
Although the tabulation may not provide an exhaustive account of every
procedural development before the Trial Court, it nevertheless paints a
troubling picture: that the Complainant did not exercise due diligence or
make concerted efforts to ensure the recording of his testimony. Instead, on
multiple dates, adjournments were sought at his instance, materially
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 5 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
contributing to the prolonged and avoidable delay in the proceedings.
9. Mr. Harpreet Singh has also placed on record a supplementary
tabulation reflecting the status of proceedings from 26 th July, 2023, to 2nd
July, 2025, which indicates that the Complainant’s examination concluded
as late as 19th May, 2025. While Respondent No. 1 has sought to attribute
the adjournments during this period primarily to the non-availability of the
accused persons and other extraneous reasons, this Court finds such
assertions to be wholly unsubstantiated, misconceived, and unsupported by
the material on record. A cumulative assessment of the proceedings reveals
that over a span of nearly 25 years, Respondent No. 1 has continued to
prosecute the present complaint without bringing the trial to its logical
culmination. Although it is not disputed that the accused persons also sought
adjournments on certain occasions, this, by itself, cannot obscure the
overarching fact that the principal and predominant cause of delay lies
squarely at the door of the Complainant. In this backdrop, the Court is
constrained to conclude that the inordinate delay is largely a direct
consequence of the Complainant’s persistent lack of diligence.
10. It is nonetheless imperative to observe that during the period between
2023 and 2025, Respondent No. 1 has demonstrated an inclination to pursue
the complaint. The supplementary tabulation submitted by Mr. Harpreet
Singh also reveals that, on several occasions, adjournments were sought at
the behest of the accused persons themselves. Specifically, for the period
spanning from 26th July, 2023, to 2nd July, 2025, save for two instances, the
adjournments were not occasioned by the Complainant. Rather, the majority
of these delays were attributable to the pendency of the matter before the
Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, as well as requests
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 6 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
from the accused side. It thus becomes evident that the entire delay in the
trial is a cumulative consequence of multiple factors, including
adjournments sought by the accused persons and the diversion of the matter
to mediation efforts.
11. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note that, in recent months,
substantial progress has been achieved: Respondent No. 1 has been fully
examined and cross-examined, and two other complainant witnesses (CW-2
and CW-3) have completed their examination-in-chief and now await cross-
examination by the accused.
12. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, while it is evident that a
significant portion of the delay in the trial is attributable to the Complainant,
this Court is not persuaded to hold that the entire responsibility for such
delay rests solely upon him. A holistic assessment of the factual matrix
reveals that delays were also occasioned by adjournments sought by the
accused persons and the pendency of parallel mediation proceedings.
Moreover, it is significant to note that the trial has since regained
momentum: the Complainant (CW-1) has been examined and cross-
examined, and the examination-in-chief of two additional complainant
witnesses (CW-2 and CW-3) has been completed. In this backdrop, and
bearing in mind the advanced stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the
considered view that it would not be appropriate to quash the complaint at
this juncture merely on the ground of protracted pendency. Instead, it must
be directed that the trial is concluded in a time bound manner.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
13.1. The trial in the impugned compliant must be positively concluded
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 7 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
within a period of four months from today;
13.2. The Trial Court is further directed to ensure that no unnecessary
adjournments are granted on account of routine grounds, including personal
inconvenience of counsel, unless it is absolutely unavoidable and supported
by cogent reasons to be recorded in writing;
13.3. Nonetheless, any adjournment sought by the Complainant, or any
adjournment occasioned by his conduct, shall entail a cost of ₹25,000/-,
payable to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority;
13.4. Likewise, any delay or adjournment sought by any of the accused
persons shall similarly attract a cost of ₹25,000/-;
13.5. The Trial Court shall not grant any concession or indulgence in
respect of these costs under any circumstances;
13.6. On the next date before the Trial Court, i.e., 23rd July, 2025, the Trial
Court shall, in consultation with counsel for both sides, formulate a
comprehensive schedule for recording the statements of all remaining
witnesses and conclusion of trial. The counsels shall strictly abide by this
schedule and shall not seek any modification or deferment thereof;
13.7. The Trial Court shall submit a compliance report to this Court through
the Principal District & Sessions Judge after the expiry of the stipulated
four-month period, confirming the status of the trial and specifying whether
the timeline has been adhered to;
13.8. In the event of any unjustified non-compliance with this timeline by
either party, it shall be open to the Trial Court to consider proceeding under
Section 256 Cr.P.C. (in case of absence of the Complainant) or to take such
steps as may be warranted in law against the defaulting party, including
issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants as deemed appropriate.
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 8 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
14. With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of along
with pending application.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Trial Court as
well as the Principal District & Sessions Judge, for necessary information
and compliance.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 3, 2025/ab
W.P.(CRL) 2032/2023 Page 9 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2025 at 21:27:51
[ad_2]
Source link