The legal aid system must ensure effective representation for vulnerable individuals, and lapses by legal counsel should not penalize the complainant.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

CRL. M.A. 1230/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CRL. M.C. 240/2025

3. By way of this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter ‘BNSS’] the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 05.10.2024 [hereafter "impugned order"] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi [hereafter "Sessions Court"] in Crl. Rev. No. 496/2024 titled Bachhitar Singh v. State and Ors. By way of the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court was pleased to dismiss the revision petition filed by the petitioner, and uphold the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-12, South East, Saket, Delhi [hereafter "Magistrate"] wherein the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner, under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter "Cr.P.C."] as well as for non-prosecution.

4. Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 27.02.2018, the petitioner had been repairing the roof of his house along with his wife when respondent no. 2, accompanied by two unidentified persons, had come to the roof of the adjoining building. Respondent no. 2 and his associates had started abusing the petitioner and his wife, and had threatened to kill both of them. They had then demolished the top wall of the petitioner's property with the intent to harm him and his wife. Luckily, the petitioner and his wife had managed to escape before the wall could be demolished. The petitioner had immediately gone to the ground floor and had called the police, who had arrived an hour later and recorded the petitioner's statement. On 22.05.2018, as no action had been taken by the police in response to the complaint, the petitioner had filed a formal written complaint to the SHO of Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi. Despite this, no action had been taken on his complaint, nor had an FIR been registered. Left with no option, the petitioner had filed a formal complaint before the DCP concerned on 13.05.2019, but no action had been taken for redressal. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR against respondent no. 2 and 3, and the unknown associates of respondent no. 2.

6. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 18.05.2024, had dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and had fixed the matter for leading pre-summoning evidence. On 03.10.2023, while the matter was listed for pre-summoning evidence, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate and had requested an adjournment as the legal aid counsel was not available. The matter had been adjourned to 13.12.2023. On 13.12.2023, the legal aid counsel was again unavailable, and the matter had been adjourned to 05.03.2024. On 05.03.2024, when the matter was listed again for pre-summoning evidence, for the third consecutive hearing, the legal aid counsel assigned to the petitioner had not appeared before the Court, and an adjournment had been granted with a final opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence. The matter had been adjourned to 04.05.2024.

7. On 04.05.2024, the petitioner had appeared in person, but the legal aid counsel had once again not been available. The learned Magistrate observed that despite being granted several opportunities, the complainant had not led pre-summoning evidence. The learned M