Rahul Kumar Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi High Court · 23 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5929

Manoj Jain

CRL.M.C. 5120/2026

2026:DHC:5929

criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the dismissal of a complaint due to the petitioner’s prolonged non-appearance and failure to lead evidence, holding no sufficient cause or miscarriage of justice warranted interference.

Full Text

CRL.M.C. 5120/2026 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2026

CRL.M.C. 5120/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21485/2026
RAHUL KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swagata Gupta, Mr. Kamlesh Kr.
Mishra and Ms. Shivani Verma, Advocates.

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

JUDGMENT

(oral)

1. Petitioner had filed a complaint alongwith application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the averment that he was threatened, coerced and forced into a sham and bogus marriage by the accused persons. According to him, he was made to marry a lady who was already married.

2. Learned Trial Court, though, dismissed his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., permitted him to lead pre-summoning evidence.

3. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not appear for leading pre-summoning evidence.

4. The impugned orders would indicate that there was no appearance from his side, right from 23.03.2022 till 01.04.2025. Resultantly, when the abovesaid complaint was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 01.04.2025, on account of non-appearance of the complainant for last more than three years, it was dismissed after repeated calls.

5. Such order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Revision Petition before the learned Court of Sesssions and learned Court of Sessions CRL.M.C. 5120/2026 2 also dismissed his Petition, while observing that he could not give any explanation as to why he did not pursue his complaint, despite grant of numerous opportunities. Para 8 of the order passed by the learned Court of Sessions on 16.12.2025 read as under:-

“8. After hearing arguments and going through the record, I found that after dismissal of the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC, the Court fixed the matter for recording of pre-summoning evidence. Various opportunities were granted to the complainant / petitioner to lead evidence. Court notice was also sent to the petitioner. He was served but despite that he failed to appear. It is pertinent to mention here that hybrid facilities were also available and parties can appear through VC. Even on the last date of hearing, before this Court also, petitioner appeared only through VC. But he choose not to appear before Ld. JMFC, even the counsel for the complainant did not appear. The matter was pending for the last about 03 years for leading evidence which he has not preferred. It is not only one day non-appearance, it is non action on the part of the petitioner for continuous three years resulting in dismissal of the complaint. Complainant/ petitioner also failed to explain the reason for his non-appearance as well as non-appearance of his counsel on that day.”

6. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the abovesaid order but in view of the facts presented before this Court, there is nothing which may even remotely indicate that the petitioner was prevented by any sufficient cause and was in no position to pursue his abovesaid complaint. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that there is any serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court, necessitating interference by this Court by invoking its inherent powers.

7. Finding no merit or substance in the present petition, the same is, hereby, dismissed in limine.

JUDGE JULY 23, 2026/ss/sk

Rahul Kumar Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation