The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a victim of crime has the locus standi to petition the High Court seeking directions for a speedy trial, overturning a Delhi High Court order that dismissed such a plea as frivolous and imposed costs on the complainant.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar allowed an appeal by Renuka Jain, the complainant in a cheating case registered in 2017, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within one year. The Court ruled that a victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system with a vested right to insist on a speedy and fair trial, and cannot be reduced to the status of a mere witness.

The case arises from FIR No. 211/2017 registered at Farsh Bazar Police Station under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was registered as CR Case No. 7850/2019 before a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Shahdara District Courts, Karkardooma, Delhi. Aggrieved by the slow progress, Ms. Jain had earlier moved the Delhi High Court, which on February 7, 2023 directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two years after framing of charges. When the trial did not progress meaningfully, she filed a fresh petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking directions for expeditious disposal.

The prosecution objected to the petition on the ground of locus standi. The High Court concurred and dismissed the petition on January 6, 2026, holding that in a State-prosecuted case, the de facto complainant's role is limited to being a witness and only the State or the accused can bring such a petition. The High Court labeled the petition as frivolous and a drain on its dockets, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on Ms. Jain. The Supreme Court stayed that cost order on July 24, 2026 and has now set it aside.

Victim is a stakeholder, not just a witness

Rejecting the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that a victim, as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC and Section 2(y) BNSS , is not a stranger to criminal proceedings. "To say that the role of the victim is limited to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system . Like the accused, she has also a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair trial ," the bench stated.

The Court analyzed the statutory scheme under Sections 301(2) and 302 CrPC, and their counterparts in the BNSS – Sections 338 and 339 – which permit a private person, with the court's permission, to assist the prosecution. It noted that Section 24(8) CrPC empowers the trial court to permit the victim to engage an advocate of their choice to assist the prosecution. "Therefore, on a reading of the statutory scheme as enumerated supra, certainly a victim has locus standi to seek a speedy trial . She can certainly bring a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking a direction from the High Court to the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings," the Court held.

Precedents reinforce victim's right to speedy trial

The Supreme Court relied on a line of its own decisions to underscore the victim's stake in the process. In Mangal Singh vs. Kishan Singh (2009) 17 SCC 303, this Court recognized that delay in trial causes acute suffering to victims, sometimes more than the accused, and that it would be a grave mistake to give all benefits of delay to the accused while denying justice to the victim.

In Rattiram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516 , the Court emphasized that the whole purpose of speedy trial is to avoid oppression and prevent delay, and that it is a sacrosanct obligation of all concerned with the justice dispensation system to make criminal justice effective, vibrant and meaningful. "The concept of speedy trial cannot be allowed to remain a mere formality," the Court quoted from that judgment.

The Court also referred to Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 387, where it was held that though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at the mere asking, the victim has a right to assist the court in a trial before the Magistrate. More recently, in Keshvendra Singh vs. Shankar Singh, 2026 SCC Online SC 1588, this Court reiterated that the right to speedy trial is not only the accused's prerogative but also a valuable right of the victim, and any inordinate delay in the conclusion of trial could have a deleterious effect on society.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's view was based on a complete misreading of legal and constitutional provisions and could not be sustained.

One-year deadline for trial court

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court dated January 6, 2026 and directed the trial court to conclude the trial in CR Case No. 7850/2019 expeditiously and within an outer limit of one year from September 24, 2026. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions remain open.

According to the submissions made by the State of NCT of Delhi before the Supreme Court, the prosecution has cited 22 witnesses, of which one has been deleted. The remaining 21 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined; PW-1 was undergoing cross-examination at the time of the hearing. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.