Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has set aside the dismissal of a criminal complaint and restored it to its original stage after finding that the complainant, a financially disadvantaged litigant, was left unrepresented due to the repeated absence of his court-appointed legal aid counsel. The court ruled that the complainant should not suffer for lapses beyond his control and directed the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure proper legal representation in such cases.

The case arose from an incident on February 27, 2018, when the petitioner, Bachittar Singh, was allegedly attacked by his neighbor (Respondent No. 2) and two unidentified persons while repairing the roof of his house. According to the petitioner, the respondents verbally abused and threatened him and his wife before demolishing a portion of their property. Although the petitioner reported the incident to the police, no action was taken.

On May 22, 2018, the petitioner filed a written complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Amar Colony Police Station, followed by another complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) on May 13, 2019. Despite these efforts, the authorities did not take any steps to register a First Information Report (FIR).

Left without legal recourse, the petitioner approached the Magistrate’s Court, filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR against the respondents. On May 18, 2024, the Magistrate dismissed the application and directed the petitioner to present pre-summoning evidence.

At this stage, the petitioner, represented by a legal aid counsel appointed by the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA), was required to lead evidence in support of his complaint. However, on multiple hearing dates—October 3, 2023, December 13, 2023, March 5, 2024, and May 4, 2024—the petitioner’s legal aid counsel failed to appear before the Magistrate. Each time, the petitioner requested adjournments, but the court eventually dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. for non-prosecution.

The petitioner then challenged the dismissal before the Sessions Court, arguing that he had been diligent in attending hearings and that the absence of his legal aid counsel was beyond his control. However, on October 5, 2024, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to file any complaint against his legal aid counsel and was negligent in pursuing his case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court examined whether the petitioner’s complaint was rightly dismissed and whether the lower courts had properly accounted for the petitioner’s lack of legal assistance.

The court noted that the petitioner was present at every hearing and had repeatedly informed the Magistrate about the absence of his legal aid counsel. The judgment recorded: "It is undisputed that the complainant was present on every date of hearing before the learned Magistrate. The record clearly reveals that he was assisted by a legal aid counsel appointed by the DLSA, but the said counsel failed to appear on multiple occasions, leading to the dismissal of the complaint."

The High Court found fault with the Sessions Court’s reasoning that the petitioner should have formally complained about his legal aid counsel’s absence. The judgment stated: "The learned Sessions Court observed that the complainant had not filed any complaint against his legal aid counsel and was therefore responsible for the dismissal of his complaint. This approach is misplaced. The petitioner, an uneducated litigant from a disadvantaged background, could not have been expected to take legal action against his own counsel when he was unaware of such procedural remedies."

The court further noted that the Magistrate had, in fact, issued an order on December 6, 2022, directing the DLSA to address the issue of the legal aid counsel’s non-appearance. However, no corrective action was taken, and the petitioner remained without representation.

The judgment stated: "Legal aid is not merely about appointing a counsel but ensuring that the counsel effectively represents the litigant. The failure of a legal aid counsel to appear cannot be held against the complainant, who is already struggling to access justice."

The court also criticized the lower courts for failing to take proactive steps to appoint a replacement counsel when it became evident that the assigned counsel was not appearing.

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of the complaint and restored it to its original stage before the Magistrate. The court issued the following directives:

• The complaint filed by the petitioner, Ct. Case No. 43492/2019, is restored to its original stage, and the matter shall be listed for pre-summoning evidence.

• The DLSA is directed to ensure that a legal aid counsel is appointed immediately to represent the petitioner before the Magistrate’s Court.

• The Magistrate shall ensure that pre-summoning evidence is concluded within two months from the date of restoration.

• The DLSA must put in place a mechanism to monitor legal aid counsels’ appearances in court and ensure that such lapses do not occur in the future.

The court further directed the Secretary, DLSA, to file a compliance report within six weeks, outlining measures taken to address the issue of absentee legal aid counsels.

Case Title: Bachittar Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 240/2025
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]