Only State Or Accused Can Seek Speedy Trial In Police-Report Cases; Complainant Lacks Locus: Delhi High Court

A petition was filed by a complainant who had sought directions to the trial court to expedite proceedings in a cheating case registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia clarified that once a case is registered and proceeds as a “State case” on a police report, the complainant’s role is limited to that of a prosecution witness. In such circumstances, the complainant does not have the legal standing (locus standi) to independently approach the High Court seeking directions for speedy disposal of the trial.

The Court added, “the subject case being a State case, role of the complainant de facto is limited to being a witness and therefore, it is only the State or the accused who can bring such petition.”

The High Court emphasized that a complainant can independently initiate or sustain legal action only in situations that are “explicitly laid down in law.”

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s reliance on an earlier judicial order, noting that the issue of locus standi had not been examined in that decision. As such, the earlier order could not be treated as a precedent on the question of whether a complainant has the right to seek speedy trial directions in a State case.

Further, the High Court found no merit in the grievance regarding delay, observing that the trial court had not caused any undue delay in the proceedings. It was specifically noted that the case was still at a preliminary stage and that charges had not yet been framed, making the allegation of protraction unfounded.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner calling the petition “completely frivolous and a drain on the already overflowing dockets of the Court.”

Cause Title: Renuka Jain v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & Ors., [2026:DHC:61]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Shiv Chopra, Surbhi Arora

Respondents: Advocate Ajay Vikram Singh