$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2054/2023 & CRL.M.A. 26442/2023 RAJINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates for State. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Himanshu Singh and Ms. Shivangi Shokeen, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 12.08.2025 1. The Petitioner is the Complainant in FIR No. 829/2006 registered under Sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Paschim Vihar. Aggrieved with the slow progress in the trial, the Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(Crl) 2924/2019 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10th December, 2019 directing with Metropolitan Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case preferably within six months. However, despite such directions, the trial remains pending. The Petitioner has once again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs: 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 14/08/2025 at 12:26:47 “a. Pass an appropriate direction/writ directing the trial court for expeditious trial in the case titled as "State v/s Ram Kumar Pawar & Ors. in FIR No. 829/2006 registered on 09/08/2006 with PS. Paschim Vihar [now with special cell] on the complaint of the Petitioner u/S 420/468/471/120b of the Indian Penal Code. b. Pass an order directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months; 2. Considering the above background, by order dated 17th March, 2025, the Trial Court was directed to submit a report on the status of proceedings. 3. In compliance, the Trial Court has furnished a report dated 13th June, 2025, stating, inter alia: “On 17.01.2020, charge was amended qua accused Surender Sood. As per the chargesheet, there are 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution, out of whom PW1, Rajender Singh has been examined over several dates beginning the year 2009 and thereafter over dates in 2019, 2024 with the record revealing that his cross-examination was deferred until the other witness (wife of the deponent Mrs. Savitri) was also examined both expected to depose on the same lines. The next witness examined was SI Ram Kishan who deposed as PW2. The third witness to depose was Ms. Savitri who was examined as PW3 and discharged. Witness PW 4 Saiful Malik was also examined and discharged. Thereafter, matter was taken up on 12th June, 2025 for the first time by undersigned, (copy of the proceedings of the said date are accompanying the letter). The list of witnesses reveals that there are about three material witnesses who are still to be examined, apart from about ten other formal witnesses. The witness PW1 is also to be cross-examined for which liberty had been granted by the Ld. Predecessor for cross-examination after completion of the testimony of PW3. As submitted on the last date of hearing, an application u/s 311 CrPC is also pending as moved by the accused persons with respect to witness PW3. Sincere efforts are being taken to expedite the trial. Considering there are number of witnesses which are yet to depose, at least four months’ time is required to complete the trial given that there are several time bound matters pending before the Court as per the oral report from the Metropolitan Magistrate.” 4. As evident from the above, while the trial has seen an unfortunate delay, the Metropolitan Magistrate is making sincere efforts to ensure its 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 14/08/2025 at 12:26:47 conclusion. The number of remaining witnesses, the pendency of an application under Section 311 CrPC and the existence of several other time- bound matters before the Trial Court reasonably justify the request for four months’ time. In such circumstances, directing an unrealistic or overly rigid timeline may risk compromising the due process of law. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of requesting the Trial Court to adhere to the timelines indicated in report dated 13th June, 2025. 6. It is clarified that the Court has not commented on the merit of the case pending before the Trial Court. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 12, 2025 as 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 14/08/2025 at 12:26:47