Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH.NISHANT GARG, ASJ-06
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 206/26
CNR No.:-DLCT01-005119-2026
In the matter of:-
Mohd. Zahid Hussain ….......Revisionist
Versus
Mohd. Mubashir & Anr. .......Respondents
Date of institution : 24.03.2026
Date of Order : 06.05.2026
Final order : Dismissed
ORDER
1. By way of the present revision petition u/s 438 BNSS, the
revisionist is challenging order dated 18.12.2025 of the Ld.
JMFC-13, Central, THC whereby the complaint filed by the
revisionist was dismissed for non prosecution/ non-appearance.
Trial Court record was summoned, however, no notice of the
revision petition was issued to the respondent.
2. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and have
gone through the Trial Court record.
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the case was
fixed for pre-charge evidence; vide order dated 19.09.2025, a
cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed on the revisionist failing which
the matter was dismissed for non-appearance / non-prosecution.
CR No. 206/26 Mohd. Zahid Hussain v. Mohd. Mubashir & Anr. Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
On the NDOH i.e. on 26.11.2025, the revisionist could not appear
before the Ld. Trial Court as he had gone to Rampur, U.P. due to
death of his near relative; Ld. Trial Court gave another
opportunity to the revisionist subject to further cost of
Rs.15,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that
on the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.12.2025, the revisionist
could not appear before the Ld. Trial Court as due to some family
issue, he had forgotten the date of hearing and accordingly, the
complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for
the revisionist.
5. The complaint in the present case was filed by complainant
/ revisionist Mohd. Zahid Hussain alleging that he was one of the
tenants in property bearing no.283, Kucha Mir Ashiqui, Chawri
Bazari, Delhi (the subject property); he had purchased the subject
property through an agreement; the accused persons illegally
trespassed into his shop and forcibly took its possession between
25.11.2007 to 01.12.2007 when the complainant was out of
station; on 03.12.2007, the complainant requested the accused
persons to remove their locks from his shop but to no avail. Left
with no other option, complainant lodged a complaint with PS
Jama Masjid but no action was taken.
6. Vide order dated 12.08.2013, the accused persons were
summoned for offence u/s 448/380/34 IPC. The case was fixed
for pre-charge evidence on 21.02.2014. Thereafter, repeated
adjournments were taken by the complainant but no pre-charge
CR No. 206/26 Mohd. Zahid Hussain v. Mohd. Mubashir & Anr. Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
evidence was led. Vide order dated 16.11.2016, last opportunity
was given to complainant to lead pre-charge evidence.
Thereafter, matter was adjourned on the ground that talks of
settlement are in progress. On several occasions, adjournments
were taken by the complainant. Vide order dated 09.07.2019,
once again, last opportunity was given to the complainant to lead
pre-summoning evidence subject to cost of Rs.5000/-; the said
cost was deposited after application for its waiver was dismissed
vide order dated 30.09.2019 and another last opportunity was
granted to the complainant to lead pre-charge evidence.
7. On 03.12.2019, the complainant partly examined himself
as CW1; his further examination in chief was deferred subject to
cost of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned several
times on joint request of the parties. Court notice was issued to
the complainant on 23.06.2023 as no one had appeared on behalf
of the complainant on 14.02.2023 and 23.06.2023. Thereafter, the
matter was again adjourned on the ground of possibility of
settlement. Again, repeated adjournments were given on the
request of the complainant. The complainant again stopped
appearing before the court and court notices were issued. Vide
order dated 15.05.2025, it was specially observed that the case
was fixed for pre-charge evidence since 22.12.2014; once again,
last opportunity was granted to the complainant to lead pre-
charge evidence. On the NDOH i.e. 29.07.2025, considering
heavy rainfall in Delhi, one another opportunity was given to the
complainant and no adverse orders for his non-appearance were
passed.
8. On 19.09.2025, the complainant again failed to appear
CR No. 206/26 Mohd. Zahid Hussain v. Mohd. Mubashir & Anr. Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
before the Court; adjournment was sought by Ld. Counsel for the
complainant on the ground that the complainant was not well; it
was specifically observed that no medical documents in support
of the illness have been placed on record; one more opportunity
was given to the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence
subject to cost of Rs.20,000/-. The order dated 19.09.2025 was
never challenged. Cost of Rs.20,000/- was not deposited. On the
NDOH i.e. 26.11.2025, fresh vakalatnama on behalf of the
complainant was filed. Exemption was sought on behalf of the
complainant on the ground of expiry of his sister in law. The case
was once again adjourned to 18.12.2025 subject to further cost of
Rs.15,000/-. Cost was again not paid.
9. On the NDOH i.e. 18.12.2025, despite repeated calls till
2:30 p.m., no one appeared on behalf of the complainant and
accordingly, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.
10. It is thus clear that from 22.12.2014 till 18.12.2025, the
complainant did not even examine himself in pre-charge
evidence despite taking numerous opportunities. Neither the
complainant nor his Counsel appeared before the Court on
18.12.2025. A vague ground that the complainant had forgotten
the date of hearing due to some family issue has been taken.
Even if the complainant had forgotten the date of hearing,
nothing prevented his counsel to appear before the Court. No
reason whatsoever has been furnished for non-payment of
previous costs imposed vide order dated 19.09.2025 and
26.11.2025. Even the grounds of non-appearance on 19.09.2025
and 26.09.2025 do not appear plausible. No documentary proof
CR No. 206/26 Mohd. Zahid Hussain v. Mohd. Mubashir & Anr. Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
in support of the submissions for non-appearance has been placed
on record.
11. Clearly, the complainant has only been abusing the process
of law and has been taking repeated adjournment on one ground
or the other. In these circumstances, Ld. Trial Court was justified
in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution and the order
dated 18.12.2025 of the Ld. Trial Court cannot, in any manner, be
said to be illegal or improper. The revision petition is devoid of
merits. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
12. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. Copy of order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for revisionist
/ complainant.
14. TCR along with copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial
Court.
15. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court
on 06th May, 2026
(Nishant Garg)
ASJ-06 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 206/26 Mohd. Zahid Hussain v. Mohd. Mubashir & Anr. Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --