Delhi HC Seeks Reports Over 6-Month Delay in Pronouncing Order [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has called for a report from a Magistrate, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the District Judge on why an order on an application seeking vacation of an interim stay has remained unpronounced for months after arguments were heard, and has asked them to explain a remark on the trial court’s order sheet that the court was “working with only one stenographer and having pendency of more than 4500 cases”.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, W.P.(CRL) 3516/2026, filed by Pradeep Bansal and others against the State (NCT of Delhi) and another. The petitioners sought expeditious and time-bound disposal of their application dated 08.04.2024 for vacation of an interim stay granted on 01.12.2023 in Complaint Case No. 1964/2023, titled Nancy Bansal v. Rajat Bansal & Ors., pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court)-02, North District, Delhi.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that arguments on the application were heard on 06.01.2026 and that the matter had remained pending for pronouncement of the order since 22.04.2026.

The High Court perused the trial court’s order sheet, and in particular the entry of 22.07.2025, when the concerned Judge was presiding over the court and has continued to do so till date. The Court observed:

“This Court is unable to discern from the order sheet, the reason for the non-pronouncement of the order.”

Issuing notice, which the Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) accepted for the State, the Court directed the Registry to seek a report from the concerned Judge, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the District Judge on the averments in the petition, specifically the reasons for non-pronouncement of the order. The report is to reach the Court two days before the next date of hearing.

The Court further directed that the CJM and the District Judge, in their report, explain the context of the remark that the court was working with only one stenographer and had a pendency of more than 4,500 cases, as it appears on the order sheet of the trial court, and similar remarks appearing in the concerned Judge’s later orders. A copy of the order is to be sent by Special Messenger to the District Judge, the CJM and the concerned Judge. The matter is listed on 03.12.2026 in the supplementary list.

The order is an interim one. The High Court has not recorded any finding on the reasons for the delay, and the reports it has sought are awaited.

Appearances:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Mr. Kunal Raj, Ms. Hitaakshi Mehra and Ms. Riya Jain, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocate, for Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.), for the State.

Case Title: Pradeep Bansal & Ors. vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 3516/2026

[Read Order]