$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1178/2026, CRL.M.A. 4707/2026, CRL.M.A. 4708/2026, CRL.M.A. 4709/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4710/2026 BHAVNEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puran Chandra, Advocate. versus JASBIR SINGH .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. The instant petition assails the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.196/2025, whereby, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed, affirming the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the JMFC Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [“NI Act”], West District, Tis Hazari Courts, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 328 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, was filed at the instance respondent against the petitioner. The complaint pertains to the alleged dishonour of Cheque for a sum of ₹80,000/- allegedly issued by the petitioner towards repayment of a friendly loan. 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 16/07/2026 at 11:25:55 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under Section 328 Cr.P.C. contending that he is suffering from Progressive Symmetrical Cerebellar Ataxia/Spinocerebellar Ataxia, resulting in neurological and cognitive impairments, rendering him incapable of making his defence. 4. The Trial Court, after considering the medical documents produced by the petitioner and the stage of the proceedings, rejected the application under Section 328 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.04.2025. The Trial Court observed, inter alia, that the petitioner had been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was able to understand the questions put to him and answer them appropriately, and that no circumstance had arisen during the course of trial to give rise to any reasonable belief that he was of unsound mind so as to attract the provisions of Section 328 Cr.P.C. It was also noted that the matter had already reached the stage of final arguments after conclusion of defence evidence. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.196/2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge (West). During the revision proceedings, the petitioner relied upon the report dated 11.08.2025 of the Medical Board constituted at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (“IHBAS”), wherein, it was opined that the petitioner suffers from Progressive Symmetrical Cerebellar Ataxia with speech disability and cognitive deficits, is unable to earn his livelihood independently and is “fit to defend a legal case with assistance”. 6. Vide order dated 04.10.2025 the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition and rendered the findings. Paragraph no. 16 is extracted as under: 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 16/07/2026 at 11:25:55 “16. In view of the documents produced by the revisionist himself he is fit to defend a legal case with assistance. The revisionist is being assisted by his father and his counsel. The case before the Trial Court is at the stage of final arguments. The Ld. JMFC has observed in her order as set out above that the accused was examined under Section 33 Cr.P.C. and he was able to understand the questions and answer them properly. She has also observed that the accused has not exhibited any behaviour before the Trial Court to hold that he is suffering from unsoundness of mind or is having psychiatric issues. It is only after satisfying herself that the accused did not appear to be of unsound mind and the stage of the case was such that the question of the revisionist being unable to make his defence did not arise, that she has proceeded with the trial. The fitness of the revisionist to stand trial has been reaffirmed by his own documents filed by him, as mentioned above. On merits, I find no infirmity with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts failed to appreciate the mandatory nature of the procedure contemplated under Section 328 Cr.P.C. It is contended that once sufficient medical material was placed before the Court indicating neurological and cognitive impairment, the Trial Court ought to have directed a proper inquiry in accordance with law by examining the competent medical officer before arriving at any conclusion regarding the petitioner's capacity to defend himself. 8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has perused the material placed on record. 9. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS is extremely limited. Such jurisdiction is exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. It is not intended to substitute concurrent findings of fact unless the impugned order disclose patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest miscarriage of justice. 10. In the present case, both the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have concurrently recorded findings that the petitioner was capable of 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 16/07/2026 at 11:25:55 understanding the proceedings. The Trial Court has taken note of the petitioner's responses recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., his participation during trial and the absence of any conduct suggesting unsoundness of mind. The Revisional Court has further considered the Medical Board Report relied upon by the petitioner himself, wherein it has been categorically opined that although the petitioner suffers from a progressive neurological disorder, “he is fit to defend legal proceedings with assistance”. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has throughout been represented by counsel and has been assisted by his father. 11. The findings recorded by the Courts are based upon appreciation of the material available on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence. Merely because another view may also be possible would not justify interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 12. This Court, therefore, finds no jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 warranting exercise of powers under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023. 13. In view thereof, petition, along with all pending applications, stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 13, 2026 Nc/ss 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 16/07/2026 at 11:25:55