W.P.(CRL)/2882/2026 of ASHOK YADAV Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ORS. on 17 September 2026

O R D E R

% 17.09.2026

1. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], on 15.10.2024, which remains pending before the learned Magistrate’s Court.

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks directions upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to register an FIR against respondent Nos. 3 to 10, and certain consequential directions, or in the alternative, seeks directions upon the learned Magistrate’s Court to decide the application under Section 175(3) BNSS, expeditiously.

3. The last order, passed by the learned Magistrate’s Court in the petitioner’s application reads as follows: “ Part arguments heard. Request filed on behalf of EO seeking exemption from personal appearance as he has been assigned duty at the ongoing JNU Students' protest. Ld. counsel for complainant submits that if EO has not appeared then submissions that have been made by him in ATR be considered as his oral submissions and the instant application be decided without affording him opportunity to advance oral submissions. I am not inclined to deprive EO of the aforesaid right. Accordingly, instant matter is hereby adjourned. EO to appear on NDOH. Re-list for arguments on 10.09.2026. At this stage, Ld. counsel submits that the NDOH may be postponed to December. Allowed. List the matter for further proceedings on 08.12.2026. At this stage, Ld. counsel has passed certain unwarranted and inappropriate remarks pertaining to backlog of cases in Indian Courts. Court has expressed it's strong displeasure at the conduct and comments of Ld. counsel and has warned him to be extremely careful. At this stage, Ld. counsel has tendered his unconditional apology for making the aforementioned remarks. His apology is accepted. Put up for purpose fixed on date already fixed i.e. 08.12.2026.”

4. Mr. Yash Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterates that he apologised unconditionally to the learned Magistrate’s Court for the remarks made by him. Although the order records that it was at his request that the proceedings were adjourned to 08.12.2026, instead of 10.09.2026, he states that the request was made sarcastically, which he accepts was inappropriate and he has apologised for the same.

5. It may also be noted that the aforesaid order was passed by the learned Magistrate’s Court on 27.02.2026, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court, only now, by way of this writ petition dated 24.08.2026, and supported by an affidavit of the same date. There is, therefore, a considerable delay by the petitioner, in approaching this Court also.

6. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to pass any binding directions, but permit the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate’s Court for an earlier date of hearing, if convenient to the learned Court, as it is recorded that the matter has been partly heard by the learned Magistrate’s Court.

7. The petition is disposed of in these terms. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 SS/MK/