In a writ petition for expeditious trial, the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea, holding that where investigation is ongoing, the proper remedies lie under Cr.P.C. provisions before the Magistrate or via criminal complaint, not via writ under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~69
RAMESH KUMAR PANDIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates with SI Ashok Singh Chauhan, PS Nihal Vihar
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 08.04.2025
CRL.M.A. 10751/2025 ( Exemption )
W.P.(CRL) 1127/2025
“Pass a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the Ld. Trial Court to conduct the trial expeditiously in FIR No. 457/2023 U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:02:00
which is currently pending trial in the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Komal Garg, Ld. MM-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, titled as State Vs. Suman and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, in the interest of justice.
b. pass any other order or relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.”
“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
1 (2008) 2 SCC 409.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:02:00
present petition.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 8, 2025/ab
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:02:00
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition seeking direction for expeditious trial where investigation is ongoing.
Whether High Courts should discourage writ petitions alleging inadequate investigation when statutory remedies exist.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Referred¶20
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Kumar Pandit
State of NCT of Delhi
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
