Anil Kumar v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And ANR
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 + CRL.M.C. 4296/2026 & CRL.M.A. 17328/2026 ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Kaushik Aggarwal, Ms. Sejal, Ms. Aashna and Nitendra Yadav, Advocates versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Hemant Mehla. APP for State Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr.
Ashwin Kataria, Advocate for R2 CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1.
The petitioner/complainant de facto has assailed order dated 23.03.2026 of the learned Court of Sessions, whereby in the Crl. Rev 132/2026, the learned revisional court stayed the magisterial directions for registration of the FIR.
2.
It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not a reasoned Page 1 of 3 pages 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801 e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.29 17:29:14 +05'30'
order.
3.
Learned APP for State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 (accused) accept notice and both of them, in all fairness, express inability to support the impugned order for the reason that the same does not spell out any reason for staying the order impugned in the revision proceedings. 4.
That being so, both sides are agreeable that the impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded to the learned Court of Sessions to decide the stay application afresh and pass a reasoned order. 5.
However, learned counsel for respondent no. 2/accused submits that by the time the Court of Sessions hears and decides the stay application, the local police would register the FIR, which would seriously prejudice respondent no. 2, who is a government servant. On this aspect, I have heard both sides for the limited purpose of ensuring that stay application of the present respondent no. 2 filed before the revisional court be properly heard. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that no cognizable offence is made out from the complaints sent by the present petitioner to the local police coupled with the medical record. Rather, it is contended that the complaints sent to police authorities clearly appear to have been drafted by some advocate.
6.
Therefore, with consent of both sides, the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 is set aside and matter is remanded to the learned Court of Sessions with the directions to hear the stay application of the revisionist Page 2 of 3 pages 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d 15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff 801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.29 17:29:04 +05'30'
(respondent no. 2 herein) afresh and pass a reasoned order. 7.
Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is directed that till disposal of the stay application of the present respondent no. 2 by the Court of Sessions, the magisterial directions for registration of FIR shall be kept in abeyance.
8.
Both sides shall appear before the learned Court of Sessions on the date already fixed there.
9.
The petition and the accompanying application accordingly stand disposed of.
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801 e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.29 17:28:53 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) MAY 29, 2026/as Page 3 of 3 pages