A complainant who was fined Rs 10,000 for asking the Delhi High Court to speed up a cheating trial has won in the Supreme Court, which held that a victim has the right to seek speedy trial like the accused, and can move the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for a direction to expedite proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that had dismissed a complainant’s petition for expeditious disposal of a cheating trial, holding that a victim is a stakeholder in the criminal justice system with locus standi to seek a speedy trial. The Rs 10,000 costs imposed on her were also set aside, and the trial court was told to conclude the trial within one year from 24 September 2026 [Renuka Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others].
The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar expressed no opinion on the merits of the trial, which is a criminal matter pending before the trial court. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and all contentions on the merits remain open.
A victim is more than a witness
Finding the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, the Bench relied on the statutory definition of a victim and on the provisions that allow a victim to participate in the prosecution (Sections 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Sections 338 and 339 of the BNSS). A victim, it held, cannot be reduced to a mere witness. It also drew on earlier decisions, including Mangal Singh, Rattiram, Amir Hamza Shaikh, J.K. International and Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh (2026), which recognised that the right to speedy trial is a valuable right of the victim and not only the prerogative of the accused.
A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system.
Like the accused, she has also a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair trial.
She could therefore bring a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking a direction for expeditious trial, the Court held, adding that the High Court’s view was based on a complete misreading of the legal and constitutional provisions.
It is based on a complete misreading of the legal and constitutional provisions and cannot be sustained.
Two petitions, one stalled trial
The appellant, Renuka Jain, is the de facto complainant in FIR No. 211 of 2017, registered for the alleged offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation a charge sheet was filed, and the case is pending as C.R. Case No. 7850 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
Her first petition on the pace of the trial went to the Delhi High Court, which directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within two years of framing of charges. The trial made little progress, so she filed a second petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking expeditious disposal.
The prosecution questioned her locus standi, and a Single Judge of the High Court accepted that objection by an order of 6 January 2026. In a prosecution conducted by the State, the Single Judge held, the complainant is only a witness, and only the State or the accused can seek such a direction. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, described as a drain on the court’s docket, and costs of Rs 10,000 were imposed on her.
One year to conclude
As the Supreme Court noted, the prosecution had cited 22 witnesses, one of whom has been dropped, leaving 21, and the first prosecution witness is under cross-examination. The High Court’s order of 6 January 2026 was set aside, costs included, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and in any event within one year from 24 September 2026. All contentions on the merits were left open.
Why the order matters
The ruling settles that a complainant in a State prosecution is not a bystander once the case reaches trial. Delay in trial is most often argued by the accused, in the context of bail or quashing. The Court has now made clear that the victim, who waits for the outcome, can also approach the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
It also cautions High Courts against treating such petitions as frivolous or imposing costs on victims for seeking them, and reinforces the line of cases that treats speedy and fair trial as a right shared by the accused and the victim alike.
Case Title: Renuka Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Fauzia Shakil (AOR), with Advocates Shivangi Nanda, Nazmeen Ahmed, Khalid Ali and Aanand Kumar Vashistha for the appellant; Additional Solicitor General Davinder Pal Singh, with Advocates Akshat Aggarwal, Vidhi Gupta, Sanjay Tyagi, Ishaan Sharma, Disha Thakkar, Dr. N. Visakamurthy (AOR), Dr. Sushil Balwada (AOR), Vikash Sharma, Noor Alam and Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi for the respondents.