Back
"Classic Case of Abuse": Delhi HC Hits Accused with ₹50,000 Fine for Stalling Trial Nearly a Decade
In a scathing oral judgment, the
dismissed a petition by Azad Saifi challenging lower court orders closing his right to cross-examine complainant Akhtar Ali in a criminal case dating back to July 2016. Justice Girish Kathpalia not only upheld the
's dismissal but imposed ₹50,000 costs on Saifi, labeling his tactics a
"classic case of
."
The ruling underscores the judiciary's intolerance for endless delays designed to wear down complainants.
A Trail of Missed Chances: The 2016 Complaint's Tortuous Path
The saga began with Akhtar Ali filing a criminal complaint against Azad Saifi on . Saifi appeared before the in but then sought seven adjournments before a notice under was framed in . Opportunities to cross-examine Ali on , and , were squandered through absences and further adjournments. By , the closed Saifi's . He then went AWOL, earning absconder status on .
Higher courts intervened: The set aside the 2018 and 2020 orders in , granting fresh chances. Yet, Saifi failed again, leading to another closure on . The revived it in with ₹10,000 costs, but on , Saifi skipped court—claiming his maternal uncle's hospitalization required his presence since the uncle's son was out of town. Hospital records debunked this: the son was there. Further delay condonation pleas cited his uncle's death and his daughter's passing (misrepresented as recent), which the rejected as time-barred and false.
Desperate Defenses and Exposed Deceptions
Saifi's counsel, , argued before Justice Kathpalia that the uncle excuse was mere "confusion"—one son was absent, not all—insisting it justified the no-show. No other substantive arguments were advanced, and respondent Akhtar Ali had no representation.
The court was unmoved, noting Saifi's pattern of non-availing despite multiple remands. As news reports highlighted, this wasn't just delay; it was "mischievous" prolongation hoping the complainant would abandon the case out of frustration.
No Mercy for
Justice Kathpalia meticulously traced the timeline, exposing falsehoods like the misrepresented family emergencies. No precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforces principles against abuse under ( ), emphasizing that repeated don't entitle parties to endless stalls. The court distinguished genuine delays from fabricated ones, prioritizing trial expeditiousness.
Key Observations
"This is a classic case of, whereby the petitioner has been repeatedly trying to stall trial of the criminal complaint case, which was instituted way back in the month of July, 2016."
"The petitioner was repeatedly granted indulgence by theas well as this Court and matter was repeatedly remanded, but the petitioner opted not to avail the advantage of that indulgence. Not just this, the petitioner even submitted complete falsehood before the."
"Theis not just devoid of merit, but the same is also a mischievous attempt at protracting theproceedings endlessly, awaiting that the respondent/complainant gives up theunder frustration."
"The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner/accused with DHCLSC within one week."
Gavel Falls: Dismissal, Costs, and a Clear Message
The petition and accompanying application were dismissed outright. Saifi must deposit ₹50,000 with the Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within a week, with compliance reports due from the and DHCLSC secretary within four weeks.
This decision signals zero tolerance for in criminal trials, potentially deterring similar abuses. For complainants like Ali, it's a win against frustration; for the system, a push toward swifter justice amid mounting backlogs.
