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 20Digitally 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 20Digitally 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 20Digitally 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.
4
Pari 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 20Digitally 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
+0530Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 20.02.2026. ASJ-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiCR No. 558/2024 Dr. Anand Vishal v. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 20 of 20
