Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-005163-2026
Criminal Revision No. 207/2026
Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mohd. Salman
S/o Imtiazuddin
R/o 3164, Phatak Teliyan
Turkman Gate, Delhi-6.
….Revisionist/Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of NCT Delhi.
2. Allauddin
S/o Mohammad Din
R/o 3168, Phatak Teliyan,
Turkman Gate, Delhi-6.
….Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.03.2026
Judgment Delivered on : 30.05.2026
-- 1 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.2 of 13
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition
under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order
dated 24.12.2025 passed by Ms. Sayesha Chadha, Ld. MM-08,
Central District, THC, Delhi in FIR NO. 202/2017, PS Chandni
Mahal.
1. It is averred that case FIR No. 202/2017 PS Chandni
Mahal is pending in the Trial Court wherein revisionist is
complainant who is a practicing lawyer. It is further averred that
vide order dated 24.07.2025, Trial Court directed
complainant/revisionist to appear physically in the Court on next
date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2025, failing which, he would be liable
to deposit a cost of 5,000/- in DLSA. It is further averred that	₹
on 06.10.2025, petitioner physically appeared before the Trial
Court and requested to mark his appearance as he got late in
reaching the Court and in the meanwhile, matter has been called
and next date of hearing was fixed as 24.12.2025. It is further
submitted that despite request being made, presence of petitioner
has not been taken on record on 06.10.2025. It is further averred
that on 24.12.2025, petitioner appeared in the Trial Court and
reminded about his presence on last date of hearing and then
completed his deferred cross-examination but by that time,
petitioner was feeling traumatic and painful because last year at
the same time, petitioner’s elder brother had expired due to acute
brain hemorrhage and that is why, petitioner left the Court room
in need of fresh air and change whereupon Trial Court has stated
-- 2 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.3 of 13
in the Court order dated 24.12.2025 that “
The complainant was
liable to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- in DLSA. However, he has
left the Court without permission”. He further submitted that on
05.02.2026, petitioner again appeared through VC and reminded
the Trial Court about the fact of his physical appearance before
the Trial Court. He further submitted that he mentioned before
the Trial Court that he clicked the photograph of entrance of
Court room when he left the Court room which is saved in the
Phone gallery and gmail drive with date and time but his
submissions were not taken into account by the Trial Court and
instead, Trial Court passed harsh order against the petitioner and
that is why, aggrieved by impugned order dated 24.12.2025,
present revision petition has been filed on the following grounds:
Grounds:
a. That the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that all
Court Proceeding streams live and used to preserve with
concerned Computer Branch, same can be called for
ascertaining the fact about the petitioner’s claim of being
present before the Trial Court on 06.10.2025.
b. That the Trial Court failed to take into account that while
leaving the Trial Court on 06.10.2025 after humble request
to take his presence on record, when petitioner reached
late, clicked the Photograph of the entrance of Court
Room showing the name of Learned Court i.e. Ms.
Sayesha Chadha which is still preserved with the
-- 3 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.4 of 13
petitioner Phone Gallery. As time, date of stated
photograph can be traced from inbuilt auto-saved
information from the petitioner’s phone-set.
c. That the Trial Court again did not take into account the
fact that photo is saved with Google Drive Backup and the
time and date of same can be detected/ scrutinized from
drive for the truthfulness of the narrated fact herein from
the Phone-set of petitioner.
d. That the Trial Court erred to the pass the order dated
06.10.2025 while not taking the presence of the petitioner
on record though a humble submission/ request has been
made from the end of petitioner.
e. That the Trial Court again erred to pass the order dated
24.12.2025 while ordering the petitioner to deposit Rs.
5000/- to DLSA in wake of petitioner’s submission on last
date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2025 where appearance of
petitioner was not taken on record rather an absence has
been notified.
2. It is further submitted that revisionist has not filed any
other revision against the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 and
05.02.2026. It is prayed that aforesaid impugned orders be set
aside qua imposition of cost on the petitioner.
-- 4 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.5 of 13
3. Respondent No.1/State chose not to file any reply but
straightforward addressed arguments. Ld. Addl. PP for the State
vehemently opposed the present revision petition on the ground
that petitioner is intentionally and deliberately trying to mislead
the Court by filing it. It is further averred that there is sanctity
attached to the judicial proceedings and therefore, submissions
which do not form part of Trial Court Record and order sheets
cannot be taken into account. It is further submitted that ample
opportunities have been given to the petitioner to appear before
the Court and thereafter, Trial Court was constrained to impose
the cost upon him in order to seek his appearance in the Trial
Court. It is further submitted that trial court has passed well
reasoned order and therefore, the revision petition be dismissed
with cost.
4. Respondent No.2/accused gave no objection qua present
revision petition by stating that he has no role to play in the
present revision petition as cost was imposed by the Court on the
petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record
carefully.
6. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to go through the
relevant orders passed by the Trial Court which are reproduced
as under:
“CIS No. 14641/2018
STATE Vs. ALLAUDDIN
-- 5 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.6 of 13
FIR No. 202/2017
PS Chandni Mahal
24.07.2025
Present: Sh. Tushar Kadian, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person with Ld. Counsel Ms.
Tabassum.
ASI Sandeep in person.
MHCM in person.
Complainant in person through VC.\
Complainant submits that he requests for
adjournment to be present in person since he is not well
today.
In the interest of justice, adjournment is
allowed. Let he be summoned afresh for the next date of
hearing.
Witness ASI Sandeep is discharged
unexamined for today. Let he be summoned afresh for the
next date of hearing.
It stands clarified that in case complainant
does not enter appearance physically in the court, he shall
be liable to deposit a cost of Rs.5000/- in DLSA on the
next date of hearing.
MHCM be summoned along with case
property and register no.19 for the next date of hearing.
Put up for PE on 06.10.2025.
-sd-
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JMFC-08/Central/THC/Delhi
24.07.2025
CIS No. 14641/2018
STATE Vs. ALLAUDDIN
FIR No.202/2017
PS Chandni Mahal
06.10.2025
-- 6 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.7 of 13
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused in person.
Ms. Tabassum, Ld. counsel for accused
through VC.
Complainant Mohd. Salman is absent.
ASI Sandeep is absent.
MHCM in person.
Witness ASI Sandeep is absent despite
service. Issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
against him.
Complainant Mohd. Salman is absent despite
service. Let he be summoned afresh through SHO PS
concerned for the next date of hearing.
MHCM be summoned along with case
property and register no.19 for the next date of hearing.
Put up for PE on 24.12.2025.
-sd-
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JMFC-08/Central/THC/Delhi
06.10.2025
CIS No. 14641/2018
STATE Vs. ALLAUDDIN
FIR No.202/2017
PS Chandni Mahal
24.12.2025
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused in person with Ld. Counsel Ms.
Tabassum.
Complainant Mohd. Salman in person.
ASI Sandeep Singh in person.
The complainant was liable to deposit the cost
of Rs.5000/- in DLSA. However, he has left the court
without permission. Let he be summoned afresh for the
next date of hearing.
PW-4 Mohd. Salman examined-in-chief,
-- 7 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.8 of 13
cross-examined and discharged.
PW-5 ASI Sandeep Singh examined-in-chief,
cross-examined and discharged.
Ld. APP submits that no witness remains to be
examined. Hence, PE stands closed.
Put up for SA on 05.02.2026 at 2.00 pm.
-sd-
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JMFC-08/Central/THC/Delhi
24.12.2025
CIS No. 14641/2018
STATE Vs. ALLAUDDIN
FIR No.202/2017
PS Chandni Mahal
05.02.2026
Present: Sh. Tushar Kadian, Ld. APP for the State.
Complainant in person through VC.
Previous cost of Rs.5000/- not deposited by
the complainant. Let the same be deposited by 2.00 pm.
Put up at 2.00 pm for recording of SA.
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JMFC-08/Central/THC/Delhi
05.02.2026
At 2.00 pm.
Present: Sh. Tushar Kadian, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person.
Ms. Tabassum, Ld. counsel for accused
through VC.
Complainant has not deposited the cost. Let
he be summoned for the next date of hearing with
-- 8 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.9 of 13
endorsement that in case the cost is not deposited on the
next date of hearing, recovery warrants shall be imposed.
Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC is
recorded.
Accused does not intend to lead DE.
Put up for final arguments on 24.03.2026.
-sd-
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JMFC-08/Central/THC/Delhi
05.02.2026”
7. Perusal of TCR and impugned orders reveal that on
24.07.2025, complainant/petitioner appeared through VC and
requested for adjournment on ground of bad health whereupon
matter was adjourned by the Trial Court with the directions for
the complainant to appear physically on next date of hearing i.e.
06.10.2025, failing which, he would be liable to deposit a cost of
Rs.5,000/- in DLSA, thereby, giving an inference that Trial Court
has passed a categorical order mentioning that the presence of
complainant is essential on next date of hearing and petitioner
was very well aware about the consequence of his non-
appearance on next date of hearing i.e. 06.10.2025 as the same
are clearly mentioned by the Trial Court in order dated
24.07.2025. Despite that, petitioner chose not to appear in the
Trial Court on 06.10.2025 as well as miserably failed to seek any
exemption from appearance on 06.10.2025, as reflected from
aforesaid order sheet of Trial Court Record, thereby, giving an
inference that he was taking the Court proceedings in
lackadaisical manner, despite being an advocate himself. It is
-- 9 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.10 of 13
argued by the petititoner that he reached the Court late on said
date and requested the Trial Court to mark his presence.
However, these submissions are nowhere mentioned in the Trial
Court proceedings and therefore, cannot be relied upon. Perusal
of the TCR and order dated 24.12.2025 further reveals the non-
serious and carefree approach of petitioner towards the Court
proceedings as it is noted that on 24.12.2025, petitioner had left
the Trial Court without permission and without deposition of cost
of Rs.5,000/-. It is argued on behalf of revisionist that he left the
Court on 24.12.2025 due to acute suffocation, gloom and trauma
from flashback. However, this plea of petitioner holds no water
and this Court finds no force in this argument on behalf of
petitioner as he failed to furnish any medical document in
support of his contentions. Furthermore, there is no mention of
such bad health/trauma of petitioner in the Trial Court Record
also. It is noted that considering carefree and non-serious
approach of petitioner towards Court proceedings, Trial Court
was constrained to impose cost upon him in order to secure his
presence in the Court, so that, trial can proceed further. Despite
that, petitioner herein being adamant is not depositing the cost in
the Trial Court, due to which, vide order dated 05.02.2026, Trial
Court has mentioned about taking stringent steps against him for
effecting recovery of cost imposed upon him. Furthermore, there
is a sanctity attached to the judicial proceedings and there is no
reason to disbelieve it. It is noted that ample opportunities have
been given to the petitioner prior to imposition of cost but he
failed to avail the same as reflected from the Trial Court Record.
-- 10 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.11 of 13
8. It is pertinent to note that Ld. Trial court has rightly passed
the impugned order qua imposition of the cost on the petitioner
herein which does not call for any interference by this court in
revisional jurisdiction, more so, considering the conduct of
revisionist herein who failed to appear in person in the Trial
Court despite several opportunities being given.
9. Coming now to the case law, while discussing the power
of the revisionist court, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 107, it
has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
“3. ...The revision power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual
manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has
no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the
trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional
powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there
is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal
proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in
the First Information Report even if they are taken at the
face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the
offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court
in Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000
CriLJ 746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the
trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing
the charges.”
10. Also, the present court have to keep in mind that revisional
jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases
where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest
error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. In Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, 2021
-- 11 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.12 of 13
SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as
under:-
“
9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is
extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC
gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to
consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the
proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that
while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a
finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does
not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case.
A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy
itself about the legality and propriety of the findings,
sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own
conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
11. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh Ramrao
Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC
123 wherein it has been observed as under :
“
14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse
or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or
there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there
is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is
not justified in setting aside the order, merely because
another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant
to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the
revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court
to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal
jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under
Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of
an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision
is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or
untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly
unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material
or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously,
-- 12 of 13 --
CR No. 207/2026 Mohd. Salman Vs. State & Anr. Page No.13 of 13
the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of
their revisional jurisdiction."
12. Applying the aforesaid Principle of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as law as discussed in
preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that Ld. Trial Court has
rightly passed the orders dated 24.12.2025 and 05.02.2026 as per
law. Accordingly, no material brought on record to challenge
correctness, legality and propriety of the aforesaid impugned
orders which is sine qua non for invoking revisional jurisdiction.
It cannot be said at this stage that conclusion arrived by the Ld.
Trial Court is unreasonable and unjustified, calling for
interference by the present Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the impugned
order passed by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision
petition is dismissed.
13. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the
merits of the case. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the
copy of this order.
14. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
15. Copy of order be given dasti to the revisionist.
1.
Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
on 30th of May, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 13 of 13 --