$~102

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

NIKHIL DHANKAR AND ORS. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Archit

Krishna, Mr. Siddharth Kaushal, Ms. Prerna Mukherjee & Ms.

Indronil Choudhry, Advocates.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for

State with P.S. Jyoti, P.S. Dwarka

Sector-23.

R-2 in person through VC.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

CRL.M.A. 1624/2026 (for early hearing

1. This is an application for early hearing of the petition. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is present for the State. Although learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – complainant is stated to be unavailable despite a passover, the complainant herself has appeared on advance notice. As she herself is legally qualified and is, in fact, a

judicial officer, I have permitted her to argue in person.

2. With the consent of Mr. Srivastava and respondent No. 2, the

application is allowed, and the petition is taken up for consideration.

3. The application stands disposed of.

1. By an order dated 21.11.2025, the petition was adjourned to

08.01.2026. The Court inter alia recorded as follows:

“6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submits that they shall not press for any arguments on summons before the learned Trial Court, which is fixed for tomorrow i.e. 22.11.2025.”

2. Unfortunately, the matter could not be taken up for hearing on 08.01.2026 due to paucity of time, and is next scheduled to be listed on

17.04.2026.

3. Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners, draws my attention to the following observations in the order dated 20.12.2025, passed by the Trial Court:

“ At this stage, Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that there is no direction from the Hon’ble High Court that arguments on the charge be not heard. Rather, the counsel for the respondent have stated before Hon’ble High Court that they will not press for any arguments on summons before the Trial Court.

Perusal of the last order reflects that Ld. counsel for the accused has stated on LDOH that directions have been given by the Hon’ble High Court that the arguments on charge be not proceeded with. Upon perusal of the order dated 21.11.2025 of Hon’ble High Court, it appears that submissions made before the Court by the Ld. counsel for accused on the LDOH were not in line with order dated 21.11.2025, accordingly, he is advised, to make submissions before Court after verifying the same.”

4. Mr. Pujari submits that there is an error in the order dated 21.11.2025, to the extent that the reference to “arguments on summons” should have read “arguments on charge”. The complainant also fairly accepts that the submission on 21.11.2025 related to arguments on charge.

5. In view of the above, the complainant states that she will instruct her counsel not to press arguments on charge until further orders of this Court. At the suggestion of the complainant, it is clarified by Mr. Pujari that this order pertains to arguments on charge, and not to the completion of proceedings under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. List on the date fixed, i.e. 17.04.2026.

7. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 16, 2026 ‘pv/KA’/