Archana Sahu Vs Mehruddin Saifi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Archana Sahu Vs Mehruddin Saifi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on any alleged continuing cause of action, as may be permissible, in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, disposed of; exemption application CRL.M.A. 863/2026 granted subject to just exceptions and disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a prima facie case of defamation can be made out, and summons issued, where the complainant alone has been examined as pre-summoning witness (trial court held another person, in whose estimation the complainant's image had fallen, ought to have been examined); not adjudicated by the High Court as the petition was withdrawn. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In CRL.M.A. 863/2026 (exemption): exemption granted, subject to just exceptions, and the application stands disposed of.

Key takeaways

The petition under section 528 BNSS 2023 is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, i.e., liberty to file afresh on any alleged continuing cause of action, as may be permissible, in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No merits ruling is expressed on the defamation or continuing-offence questions.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.), order dated 12.01.2026 in CRL.M.C. 232/2026, Archana Sahu v. Mehruddin Saifi. Petition under section 528 BNSS 2023 impugning order dated 02.12.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Crl. Rev. No.10/2025, whereby that revision had been dismissed on the ground of delay. The revision had challenged the trial court's order dated 30.01.2023 dismissing the petitioner's complaint under section 200 CrPC 1973 alleging defamation under sections 499/500 IPC 1860; the trial court, after pre-summoning evidence of CW-1 (the complainant alone), had held that some person other than the complainant, in whose estimation her image had fallen, ought to have been examined to make out a prima facie case, and declined to issue summons. Counsel submitted that defamation is a continuing offence; the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on any alleged continuing cause of action, and pending applications were disposed of. Exemption application CRL.M.A. 863/2026 was granted subject to just exceptions. No substantive ruling on the defamation or continuing-offence points.

$~81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CRL.M.C. 232/2026

ARCHANA SAHU .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

versus

MEHRUDDIN SAIFI .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 12.01.2026

CRL.M.A. 863/2026 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.C. 232/2026

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner impugns order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Crl. Rev. No.10/2025.

The petitioner had filed a complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging offences against the respondent under sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing defamation.

Before the learned trial court, the petitioner produced only one witness-namely herself ; and the learned trial court dismissed the

CRL.M.C. 232/2026

Page 1 of 2

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 16/01/2026 at 12:50:05

complaint after recording pre-summoning evidence of CW-1, viz. the petitioner herself.

The learned trial court held, that in order to make-out a prima-facie case of defamation, the petitioner (complainant) ought to have examined some other person as a witness, in whose estimation the complainant’s image had fallen or was harmed.

The learned trial court accordingly declined to issue summons to the respondent; and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 30.01.2023.

Order dated 30.01.2023 was challenged by the petitioner by way of a criminal revision petition, bearing Crl. Rev. No.10/2025, which has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defamation is a continuing offence; and, given a chance, the petitioner would produce other witnesses to support her plea of defamation.

After making brief submissions, counsel seeks leave to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file afresh on any alleged continuing cause of action, as may be permissible, in accordance with law.

The petition is accordingly disposed-of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed-for.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

JANUARY 12, 2026/ ak

CRL.M.C. 232/2026

Page 2 of 2

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 16/01/2026 at 12:50:05