Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.
Manisha Pande – Petitioner
Versus
Abhijit Iyer Mitra & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 3874 of 2026, Crl.M.A. 15725 of 2026 & Crl.M.A. 15724 of 2026
Decided On : 20-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bani Dikshit, Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Mr. Dhruva Vig, Mr. Ankur Raghav and Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Percivial Billimoria, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Ms. Priyamvada, Ms. Rachita Sood and Ms. Srutee Priyadarshini, Advocates, Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Sunil Chandra, PS Malviya Nagar.

Judicial orders, including interim stays, must be supported by specific reasons to ensure transparency and fairness. An unreasoned order is legally unsustainable, as the court is duty-bound to provide a formal justification for its decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice and judicial accountability.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 156(3) - Criminal Revision - Stay of operation of order - Requirement of reasoned orders - Any judicial order of temporary stay in revisionary proceedings must be supported by cogent reasons - An order lacking essential reasoning cannot be sustained in law and requires interference by the supervisory court. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The trial magistrate directed the registration of an information report. This order was challenged in a revision filed before the appellate court. The appellate court granted a stay on the operation of the magistrate’s order on the first day of the hearing without providing any reasons for the same.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the order passed by the lower appellate court was not a reasoned order, which is a fundamental requirement of the judicial process. Both parties agreed that the impugned order could not be sustained in its current form.

Issues: Whether an order of the appellate court granting a stay of the trial court's order is valid when it is devoid of any reasoning.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order, particularly one granting interim relief or staying the operation of an existing order, must articulate the basis and reasoning for such a decision. Failure to record reasons renders the order legally unsustainable and necessitates a remand for a fresh adjudication.

Result: Petition disposed of; the stay order set aside; matter remanded to the lower appellate court for a reasoned order within four weeks.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for challenging trial court orders in criminal revisions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. judicial orders must be supported by adequate reasoning. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. authority of court to remand matters for reasoned adjudication. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT :

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 04.05.2026 of the learned Court of Sessions, whereby in the course of preliminary hearing, after issuance of notice, operation of the trial court order was stayed till next date.

2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner has explained that the learned trial magistrate allowed application under Section 156(3) CrPC of the present petitioner, thereby directing registration of FIR against the present respondent no.1, which order was challenged by the present respondent no.1 by way of criminal revision. On the very first date, learned Court of Sessions stayed the operation of the order impugned before it. Hence, the present petition.

3. One of the major grievances of petitioner is that the impugned order, staying the order of the trial court was without any reasons.

4. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 on instructions accepts notice. Learned APP for State also accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.

5. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, in all fairness does not dispute that the order impugned in the present petition cannot be sustained for being not a reasoned order. However, I must make it clear that on merits of the impugned order, neither side has addressed.

6. Against the above backdrop, with consent of both sides, this petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 of the revisional court and the matter is remanded to the Court of Sessions with the directions to pass a reasoned order after hearing both sides. In view of nature of the proceedings, the learned Court of Sessions is requested to dispose of the stay application as expeditiously as possible, but positively within four weeks provided neither side takes any adjournment.

7. For further proceedings, both sides shall appear before the learned Court of Sessions on 22.05.2026 at 10:00 am.

8. Accompanying applications stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIGIRISH KATHPALIA, J.Manisha Pande – PetitionerVersusAbhijit Iyer Mitra & Anr. – RespondentsCrl.M.C. 3874 of 2026, Crl.M.A. 15725 of 2026 & Crl.M.A. 15724 of 2026Decided On : 20-05-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.
Manisha Pande – Petitioner
Versus
Abhijit Iyer Mitra & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 3874 of 2026, Crl.M.A. 15725 of 2026 & Crl.M.A. 15724 of 2026
Decided On : 20-05-2026