Dismissed¶18

Anup Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2026CRL.M.C./1036/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anup Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi; CRL.M.C. 1036/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4099/2026; High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; Justice Girish Kathpalia; decision date 06.02.2026; Section 348 BNSS; Section 311 CrPC; application to summon Court Witness kept in abeyance till after prosecution witnesses examined; prerogative of trial court to decide timing; inherent powers of High Court; interference with procedural interlocutory order; petition frivolous; dismissal with cost Rs. 10,000/-; deposit at www.bharatkeveer.gov.in; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The order keeping the summoning application in abeyance is purely a procedural order, particularly since even according to the petitioner the witness sought to be summoned would be a Court Witness. ¶10

Anup Gupta Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 09.10.2025 keeping the petitioner's application under Section 348 BNSS (Section 311 CrPC) for summoning a witness in abeyance until after examination of prosecution witnesses was liable to be challenged before the High Court. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The order keeping the summoning application in abeyance is purely a procedural order, particularly since even according to the petitioner the witness sought to be summoned would be a Court Witness.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

It is the prerogative of the trial court to decide such an application at the appropriate stage after satisfying itself regarding the necessity of summoning such witness.

¶10

Key takeaways

No law was pointed out under which such a procedural order can be interfered with by the High Court exercising its inherent powers; consequently the petition, being completely frivolous, was dismissed with costs.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Girish Kathpalia, J.), by oral judgment dated 06.02.2026, dismissed as completely frivolous, with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, a petition (CRL.M.C. 1036/2026) assailing, under the High Court's inherent powers, the trial court's order dated 09.10.2025 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 348 BNSS (Section 311 CrPC) for summoning a witness — who, even per the petitioner, would be a Court Witness — was kept in abeyance to be decided after examination of prosecution witnesses. Held that the matter being purely procedural, it is the prerogative of the trial court to decide such an application at the appropriate stage after satisfying itself of the necessity of summoning the witness; despite repeated queries, counsel could show no law permitting interference by the High Court with such a procedural order. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- directed to be deposited online at www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within one week; the accompanying application (CRL.M.A. 4099/2026) was disposed of, and a copy of the order was ordered to be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 06.02.2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 1036/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4099/2026

¶5

ANUP GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Dev and Ms. Shagun Sharma, Advocates.

¶6

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Inspector Brahma Dutt Vishnoi.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶8

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶9

Petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the trial court on his application under Section 348 BNSS ( Section 311 CrPC ). The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial court has kept the application in abeyance, to be decided after examination of prosecution witnesses.

¶10

Being purely a procedural order, especially keeping in mind that even according to the present petitioner, the witness sought to be summoned would be Court Witness, it is the prerogative of the trial court to decide such application at appropriate stage after satisfying itself regarding necessity of

¶11

CRL.M.C. 1036/2026

¶12

Page 1 of 2 pages

¶13

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff 801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.06 17:44:49 -08'00'

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 17:52:26

¶16

summoning such witness.

¶17

Despite repeated queries learned counsel for petitioner is unable to show any law under which such procedural order can be interfered with by the High Court exercising inherent powers.

¶18

The petition is completely frivolous, so dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within one week online with www.bharatkeveer.gov.in. Accompanying application stands disposed of.

¶19

5. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶20

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec GIRISH 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 KATHPALIA 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801 e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.06 17:44:37 -08'00'

¶21

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶22

FEBRUARY 06, 2026/ ry

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 17:52:26

¶24

CRL.M.C. 1036/2026

¶25

Page 2 of 2 pages

Anup Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pritm through Its Parokar Sultan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi through Concerned SHO Ps Sun Light Colony & Anr.

Sunil Kalra Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors.

Wasim Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rohit Nawariya Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Mohit Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.