Dismissed¶23

Renuka Jain v. State(Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jan 2026CRL.M.C./44/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi of complainant de facto / victim; maintainability of petition for expeditious disposal of trial in a State case; FIR No. 211/2017 PS Farsh Bazar; Section 420 IPC; order dated 07.02.2023 in W.P. (Crl.) 2090/2018 distinguished; charges not framed; no trial-court delay; frivolous petition dismissed with cost Rs. 10,000/- to Bharat Ke Veer; DHCLSC free legal aid sustainability directive; Delhi High Court, Justice Girish Kathpalia, 06.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

None to petitioner; petition dismissed as frivolous with Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on the petitioner, payable online at www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within one week; accompanying application CRL.M.A. 126/2026 also disposed of. ¶23

Renuka Jain Vs State(Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a victim and complainant de facto of the offence, has locus standi to maintain a petition seeking directions to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the trial (maintainability challenged by the State). +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

In a State case, the role of the complainant de facto is limited to being a witness; only the State or the accused can bring such a petition, and the present petition does not fall within the situations in which a complainant de facto can sustain action independent of the prosecution side.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Reliance on the coordinate-bench order in W.P. (Crl.) 2090/2018 is misplaced: it was passed in a writ petition (not the present case type), the learned Single Judge had no occasion to examine the petitioner's locus standi, it was practically a single-sentence direction, charges remain unframed, and the record reflects no delay by the trial court.

¶22

Key takeaways

While providing free legal aid, the sustainability of the legal proceedings sought to be initiated must be tested so that public money is not wasted; copy of the order sent to the Secretary, DHCLSC for future compliance.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J.; oral judgment dated 06.01.2026) in CRL.M.C. 44/2026 held that a complainant de facto / victim has no locus standi to seek directions for expeditious disposal of a State prosecution trial (FIR No. 211/2017, PS Farsh Bazar, Section 420 IPC), her role being limited to that of a witness; only the State or the accused may bring such a petition. The coordinate-bench order dated 07.02.2023 in W.P. (Crl.) 2090/2018 was distinguished as a writ-petition direction given without examining locus standi, with charges still unframed and no delay by the trial court on record. The petition was dismissed as frivolous with Rs. 10,000/- cost payable online at www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within one week, and DHCLSC was directed to test the sustainability of proceedings initiated through free legal aid.

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 06.01.2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 44/2026 & CRL.M.A. 126/2026

¶5

RENUKA JAIN .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shiv Chopra, DHCLSC with Ms. Surbhi Arora, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Yashpal Singh, PS Farsh Bazar

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner, being complainant de facto , has brought this petition seeking directions to the learned trial court to expeditiously dispose of the trial arising out of FIR No. 211/2017 of PS Farsh Bazar for offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶13

Learned APP appearing on advance intimation submits that the petition is not even maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi .

¶14

As regards locus standi , the only argument advanced by learned

¶15

CRL.M.C. 44/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 3 pages

¶17

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.01.06 17:37:01 -08'00'

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.01.2026 17:38:11

¶20

counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is a victim and also the complainant de facto of the offence, so she has a right to file such petition. Learned counsel for petitioner also refers to order dated 07.02.2023 of a coordinate bench of this Court passed in W.P. (Crl.) 2090/2018 to show that on similar petition of the present petitioner, the learned Single Judge directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two years after framing of charges.

¶21

I find substance in the submission of the learned prosecutor that the subject case being a State case, role of the complainant de facto is limited to being a witness and therefore, it is only the State or the accused who can bring such petition. In this regard, it would be apposite to also note that the complainant de facto can sustain action independent of prosecution side only in certain situations explicitly laid down in law. The present petition does not fall under that category.

¶22

So far as the reliance on order passed by the coordinate bench, firstly, the said order was passed in a writ petition, which is not the present case. Secondly, the learned Single Judge had no occasion to examine the locus standi of the petitioner and it was practically a single sentence direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within two years after framing of charges. Admittedly, till date charges are yet to be framed and the record does not reflect any delay on the part of the trial court.

¶23

The petition is completely frivolous and drain on already overflowing dockets of the Court, so dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid online with www.bharatkeveer.gov.in by petitioner within one week.

¶24

CRL.M.C. 44/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages

¶25

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.01.2026 17:38:11

¶27

Accompanying application also stands disposed of.

¶28

Further, it appears that the counsel to file this petition has been provided to the petitioner by DHCLSC without examining the strength of the case. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, DHCLSC to make sure that in future, while providing legal aid, sustainability of the legal proceedings sought to be initiated through free legal aid must be tested so that public money is not wasted.

¶29

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45 GIRISH 569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557 KATHPALIA 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa , cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.01.06 17:36:34 -08'00'

¶30

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶31

JANUARY 6, 2026/ as

¶32

CRL.M.C. 44/2026

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.01.2026 17:38:11

¶34

Page 3 of 3 pages

Renuka Jain v. State(Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Jain v. State(Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar@Varun Bidhuri@Binnu Vs State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)

Aarti Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Shilpi Rani Vs Rajkumar Prajapati & Anr.

Ajay Sharma Vs State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rajeev Ralhan Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ghanshyam @Tippu Pandit Vs State of NCT of Delhi