Delhi District Court
Shivanu Mehta vs State on 28 May, 2025
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 401/2022
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-010616-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Shivanu Mehta
S/o Late Sh. Rajendra Mehta
R/o Shop No. 18, New Market,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
(through its
Public Prosecutor)
Department of Prosecution
Tis Hazari Courts, West, New Delhi
2. Jaspreet Singh,
R/o Shop No. 18, New Market,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:14 -0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.1 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
3. Kawaljeet Singh,
R/o Shop No. 18, New Market,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018
4. Sarwan Yadav @ Damodar Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o RZ-112, Syed Nangloi,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
5. Raj Kumar
R/o RZ-2, Syed Village
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
6. Kartar Singh
S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh
R/o H.No. 153, Village Mirjapur
Neemka, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 03/11/2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 02/05/2025
Date of judgment : 28/05/2025
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:20 -
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.2 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed by the
revisionist against the order dated 07/10/2022 (‘hereinafter referred to as
‘impugned order’) passed by Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, Ld. MM-07, West
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in complaint case No. 32/2021 titled as
“Shivanu Mehta V. Jaspreet Singh & Ors.” thereby application u/s. 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. of the complainant (revisionist herein) was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to
summon the Trial Court record and to quash, set-aside and cancel the
impugned order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to
direct the Ld. Trial Court to re-consider the application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C.
afresh and to issue directions to the SHO/concerned police officer for
registration of the FIR.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present
revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the
complainant is the owner of the property bearing no. 18 (shop no. 18B),
New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi measuring 18.4 sq. mtr., (hereinafter
referred to as “shop”) which he had purchased from its previous owner on
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:25 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.3 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
21/12/2009. After purchasing the said shop, the complainant had given the
said shop on rent to one Sh. Vijay Khurana. In the month of January 2017,
when the complainant was shifting his residence, he lost his original
documents pertaining to the shop and the complainant had also filed a
complaint in this regard on 23/02/2017. In the month of June 2017, when
the complainant had visited the shop, he found that some people have re-
occupied the shop and on enquiry he found that respondent no.4 & 5 in
conspiracy with each other, had already taken the possession of his shop
and gave the same to Sh. Ravinder Singh and Smt. Guneet Kaur on monthly
rent of Rs.2,30,000/-. Later on, complainant came to know that respondent
no.4 had hatched a conspiracy and prepared forged Special Power of
Attorney dated 21/03/2017 represented himself to be a special attorney
holder of the complainant for the purpose of filing the execution petition. A
pre-mediated conspiracy had been hatched by the respondent no. 4 with
other respondents and took keys from the tenant in the Court on the basis of
SPA. On 06/07/2017, complainant had confronted with the tress-passers,
who had illegally occupied the shop and they apprised the complainant that
they were inducted as tenants by the respondent no.4. Then, complainant
had shown his ownership papers to them and only then they amicably
handed over the possession of the shop to the complainant and also gave
their statement in writing. As on 06/07/2017, the shop was in the legal
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:30 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.4 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
possession of the complainant. However, he was receiving life threats from
unknown numbers, for which, he had also filed a complaint to the police
vide DD No. 79-B dated 12/07/2017 at PS Tilak Nagar. Complainant had
engaged a counsel and got inspected the judicial file and only then it came
to his knowledge that Raj Kumar and his accomplices had purchased an E-
stamp paper of Rs.50/- on 22/02/2017 in the name of the complainant
whereas, the complainant was not even in Delhi on 22/02/2017. The above
named accused persons had prepared a forged SPA by forging the signature
of the complainant and got the same notarized. Check list, index, execution
petition, supporting affidavit, application u/s 151 CPC, other affidavits and
Vakalatnama filed in the Court, bear the forged signature of the
complainant. Respondents had committed the offence of cheating by
personating, forging and threatening the complainant and they are liable to
be prosecuted and punished as per law. On 19/07/2017, complainant had
lodged written complaint to SHO, PS Tilak Nagar vide DD No. 39-B.
Respondent no.4 had offered onetime settlement amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-
and asked the complainant to leave the shop or be ready to face the
consequences. When the police did not register FIR, then complaint
u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant and by the order of the
Court, police of PS Tilak Nagar had registered FIR No. 274/2019 against
the respondent no.3 & 4 and their associates and started investigation. On
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:36 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.5 of 46
18/08/2019, complainant was arrested and his brother Ankush Mehta was
arrested on 06/11/2019 in a false and frivolous case filed at the instance of
respondent no.4 in FIR No. 336/2019 PS Hari Nagar and two other cases.
Complainant was taken to PS Hari Nagar after his arrest and was forced to
sign a bunch of judicial and non-judicial stamp papers, to which, he denied.
Prior to arrest of brother of the complainant, the shop was opened but after
his arrest on 16/11/2019, the shop remained closed. On 14/10/2020, when
the complainant went to the shop, he was shocked to see that his shop was
open and unknown persons were running his shop. There were goods worth
Rs.5,00,000/- in the shop at the time of arrest of brother of the complainant.
When the complainant made inquiry from those unknown persons, then he
came to know that respondent no. 2 & 3 have taken the shop on rent from
respondent no.4. Complainant had shown his ownership papers to
respondent no.2 & 3 but they were not ready to vacate the shop.
Respondents had conspired and broke the lock and illegally trespassed the
shop and stolen the goods of Rs.5,00,000/- which were kept in the shop.
On 04/10/2020, complainant had called PCR and on 09/10/2020, he had
given a written complaint to the office of DCP. Complainant had also given
written complaint to the SHO, PS Tilak Nagar but the police did not register
the FIR. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint case alongwith
application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:42 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.6 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 07/10/2022.
3. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the
grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Impugned order is wrong and contrary to settled law.
Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the facts correctly. Impugned order has
been passed without application of judicial mind and also in a stereo typed
manner. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by relying upon that the field investigation is not required in the
present case and revisionist has already filed a voluminous record of 458
pages to prove his lawful possession in the shop till 06/11/2019 does not
inspire the confidence. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the
application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. without observing that the acts of the
accused persons individually and collectively are illegal, on account of
which, the revisionist has suffered loss of property and money. Accused
persons have grabbed the property by way of forgery and fabrication and
the said fact has not been appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court. Revisionist
had further learnt that the accused had placed/filed forged and fabricated
documents in the complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which are totally bogus
documents as the revisionist never executed the GPA or any sale agreement
with accused persons in the month of June, 2019. All accused persons are
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:48 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.7 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
working as syndicate and are land grabbers having protection from the
police and local politicians. Ld. Trial Court has completely brushed aside
the documents and allegations against the accused persons and passed the
impugned order, which is completely silent on the aspect of forgery and
production of fabricated documents before the Ld. Trial Court by status
report of IO. In FIR No. 274/19 u/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC PS Tilak
Nagar, no arrest of any of accused persons has been made. Ld. Trial Court
did not appreciate that all the allegations against the accused persons were
with respect to cognizable offences and despite that the impugned order has
been passed without giving any cogent reasoning. Ld. Trial Court has failed
to appreciate that the accused persons had advanced threats to the
revisionist with injury to his person and reputation and that of his family
with clear intention to deter the revisionist from taking legal action against
the accused persons. There are material contradictions in the impugned
order. Ld. Trial Court had declined to give direction for registration of FIR
despite the fact that there were allegations of forgery in the complaint and it
was incumbent upon the Ld. Trial Court to direct registration of FIR. Ld.
Trial Court had declined to give direction for registration of FIR despite the
fact that unknown persons have also been arrayed as accused in the
complaint filed by the complainant.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:54 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.8 of 46
4. Respondent no. 2, 3, 4 & 6 have contested the present revision
petition of the revisionist by filing detailed reply, wherein they denied the
contents of the present revision petition and prayed for dismissal of the
same.
It is mentioned in the reply that the present revision petition is
not maintainable as the same is barred u/s 397 (2) Cr.P.C. Vide impugned
order passed by the Ld. Trial Court, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court and case was fixed for pre-summoning
evidence. Instead of leading any evidence, revisionist has filed the present
revision petition. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by
the Ld. Trial Court. Inquiry Officer had recorded the statements as
mentioned in the status report and had also put the specific question to the
revisionist.
5. Respondent no.5 has also contested the present revision
petition of the revisionist by filing written submissions/ arguments,
wherein he denied the contents of the present revision petition and prayed
for dismissal of the same.
It is mentioned in the written submissions/ arguments that
allegations in the revision petition are vague and are not specific.
Revisionist has already approached the Civil Court by filing an application
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:59 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.9 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
u/s. 340 Cr.P.C. and FIR No.274/2019 PS Tilak Nagar in respect of alleged
shop. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial
Court and Ld. Trial Court has determined all the facts and circumstances of
the case on merits. Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order.
Revisionist has not come to this Court with clean hands and concealed the
relevant facts.
6. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision
petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld.
Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is not an interlocutory
order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is
maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as
mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was
submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 to 6 that the present
revision petition is not maintainable as the Ld. Trial Court has passed the
impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present
revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contentions has
relied upon following case laws:-
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:05 -0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.10 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(1) Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {(2014) 2
Supreme Court Cases 1}
(2) Superintendent of Police, CBI V. Tapan Kumar Singh {AIR 2003 SC
4140}
(3) Arvind Gaur V. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. {Crl. M.C. 623/2013
decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 15/02/2013}
(4) S.P. Sharma V. NCT of Delhi {1998 (76) DLT 422}
(5) Paradise Credit Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. State of NCT of Delhi {Crl. M.C.
2936/2012 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on
20/12/2013}
(6) Rajwati V. State of UP {2006 (10) ADJ 539}
(7) Mahendri & Ors. V. State of UP & Anr. {2015 (14) SCC 653}Counsel for the respondent no. 2, 3, 4 & 6 in support of his
contentions has relied upon following case laws:-
(1) Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2017) 14
SCC 809}
(2) Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra {AIR 1978 SC 47}
7. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has
challenged the order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:10 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.11 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
impugned order is reproduced as under:-
“Argued by: Sh. RK Thakur, Id. counsel for the
complainant.
ORDER-:
1. This order will dispose of an application filed by the
complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC“).
2 Briefly stated, the allegations of the complainant are
that the complainant is the owner of the property bearing
No. 18 (Shop No. 18B), New Market, Tilak Nagar, New
Delhi. It has been submitted that the complainant and his
brother Ankush Mehta was arrested in a false and
frivolous case, at the instance of accused no. 3, and the
complainant remained in judicial custody till last of
September 2020. Thereafter, upon release from judicial
custody, when the complainant went to the shop, he was
shocked to find that unknown persons were running the
said shop. The complainant has further stated that goods
worth Rs. 5,00,000, which were lying in the shop prior to
his arrest, were missing from the shop. The complainant
discovered later that the accused no. 1 and 2 had taken the
shop on rent from accused no. 3. However, despite
showing them the ownership papers belonging to the
complainant, accused no. 2 and 3 refused to vacate the
shop. The complainant has alleged that the accused
persons conspired together, broke the lock of the shop,
and illegally trespassed in the shop. Therefore, it is prayed
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:15 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.12 of 46
that the police be directed to lodge an FIR and investigate
the matter.
3 There is another aspect of the case to the effect that
when the accused was arrested in 2019, he was beaten up
in police custody in PS Hari Nagar and made to sign
various papers. However, the present application is not in
relation to the said incident, since as per the application, a
separate written complaint regarding the said incident of
beating was given to the concerned Ld. MM (under whose
jurisdiction PS Hari Nagar lies). Therefore, the present
application under section 156(3) CrPC is confined to the
alleged trespassing by the accused persons in the shop of
the complainant. Further, there is an allegation that the
accused persons have prepared forged papers to claim
ownership of the concerned shop.
4 Action Taken Report (“ATR”) was called from the
concerned SHO. As per the ATR, accused Kartar Singh
had purchased the property from the complainant in June
2019 for a consideration value of Rs. 14,20,000, and the
said payment was made in cash. The ATR also mentions
that the original chain of papers is in the custody of
accused Kartar Singh. The ATR further mentions that
statement of two public witnesses (Bhupender and
Balvinder) was recorded, and they have stated that the
physical possession of the concerned shop is with accused
Kartar Singh since June 2019. In the ATR, statement of
witnesses to the property papers, i.e., Vijay Yadav and
Sher Singh, was also recorded and the said two witnesses
have supported the execution of property papers in the
name of Kartar Singh and the fact that the said shop was
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:22 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.13 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
sold to Kartar Singh by the complainant in June 2019 for a
sum of Rs. 14,20,000.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that field investigation is not
required in the present case. All the evidence is within the
reach of the complainant. The complainant has already
filed a voluminous record of 458 pages to prove his lawful
possession in the shop till 6.11.2019 (to refute the
argument that he sold the shop in June 2019). Further,
both sides have already furnished their respective
property documents to show their ownership over the
concerned shop. If at all there has been any forgery of
documents, the Court can exercise its power and send the
said documents to FSL for forensic examination. The
dispute boils down to the issue as to whether the
complainant, who had lawful possession over the
concerned shop till June 2019, sold the said shop to the
accused Kartar Singh in June 2019 or not. No new facts
are to be unearthed and the custodial interrogation of the
accused is not needed. The offence pertains to the year
2019 and no field investigation is deemed necessary at
this moment. The recourse to Section 202 CrPC can be
taken, if any need for police investigation arises, in future.
The legal position with respect to use of powers under
Section 156(3) CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd v.
State, 2001 IV AD (Del) 625, wherein it was observed,
inter alia, as under:
7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers
a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:28 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.14 of 46
initiate investigations but this power has to be
exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a
mechanical manner. In those cases where the
allegations are not very serious and the complainant
himself is in possession of evidence to prove his
allegations there should be no need to pass orders
under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion
ought to be exercised after proper application of mind
and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the
view that the nature of the allegations is such that the
complainant himself may not be in a position to
collect and produce evidence before the Court and
interests of justice demand that the police should step
in to held the complainant. The police assistance can
be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 202(1)
of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding
with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as
held by Apex Court in 20001 (1) Supreme Page 129
titled “Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors“.
6. Further, in Vijay Gupta v. Development Credit Bank
Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6665, it was held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that:
14. Thus, the Magistrate is not supposed to act
mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each
and every case in routine and casual manner.
Criminal law is not expected to be set in m otion
on mere asking of a party. There has to be some
substance in the complaint filed and it is only if it
appears that the allegations are serious enough and
establish the commission of cognizable offence Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:33 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.15 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
required through investigation by the police, an FIR
should be ordered to be registered. The Magistrate
can treat an application under Section 156(3) CrPC as
a complaint case, adopt the procedure of the
complaint case by recording evidences under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC and then either proceed
under Section 203 Cr.PC and dismiss the complaint if
no offence is made out on summoning the accused
under Section 204 Cr.PC whose complicity is
disclosed in the inquiry conducted by it under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC.
15.Now, reverting back to the present case. I fully
concur with the findings of the Trial Court that in this
case, all the information and details are in possession
of the petitioner and his witnesses which fact also
stands even demonstrated from the copy of the
complaint filed at the Police Station and sent to the
higher Officers of the Police. The Trial Court has
properly applied its judicial mind while passing the
impugned order, holding that forwarding of the
complaint for investigation would not be conducive
to justice, as the complainant is well conversant with
the identity of the proposed accused persons and all
the information and details are in his possession as
well as in the possession of his witnesses, however,
the option for the police investigation under Section
202 Cr.PC is kept open for consideration. As such, if
need arises for police investigation, such possibility is
not precluded as the Trial Court has kept such option
open for consideration under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
16. In view of the above facts and the judgments
discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:38 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.16 of 46
no interference is required in the impugned order. The
petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The
same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application is
also dismissed.
As held in the aforesaid judgments, powers under
section 156(3) CrPC ought to be exercised only when the
nature of the allegations is such that the complainant
himself may not be in a position to collect and produce
evidence before the Court. However, as noticed in
paragraph 5 above, that is not the case in the present set of
facts. Resultantly, in view of the facts and circumstances
discussed hereinbefore and the law laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the application under
Section 156(3) CrPC stands dismissed.
7. Complainant is at liberty to lead PSE on 03.01.2023.
8. Copy be given dasti to the complainant/his counsel.
(DEVANSHU SAJLAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate -07
7/10/22″
8. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is
reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers
of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions
Judge may call for and examine the record of any
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:44 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.17 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate
within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,
recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when
calling for such record, direct that the execution of any
sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is
in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his
own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or
Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate
jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section
and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial
or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been
made by any person either to the High Court or to the
Sessions Judge, no further application by the same
person shall be entertained by the other of them.
9. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that
Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:50 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.18 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High
Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the
High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to
note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in
relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other
proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under
section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term “interlocutory order” as mentioned in section 397 (2)
Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not
decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order
which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything
finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against
that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in
view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass-
final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a
final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of
a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in
respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision
jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:55 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.19 of 46
exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An
intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when
reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby
resulting in a final order.
10. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
” Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr.” {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
“The main question which falls for determination in this
appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term
“interlocutory order” as appearing in sub-section (2) of
Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the
High Court. The term “interlocutory order” is a term of
well-known legal significance and does not present any
serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes
including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the
High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster’s New
World Dictionary “interlocutory” has been defined as an
order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid
down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be
those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties
concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:00 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.20 of 46
“interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code
has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or
artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim
or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the
important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order
which substantially affects the right of the accused, or
decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an
interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court
against that order, because that would be against the very
object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular
provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for
instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases,
passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other
steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt
amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision
would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But
orders which are matters of moment and which affect or
adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect
of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to
be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court”. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:04 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.21 of 46
It was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as ” V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I.” (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of
the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an
interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be
explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other
words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an
interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English
Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided
in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided
in another way, then the proceedings would continue;
because, in our opinion, the term ‘interlocutory order’ in the
Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider
sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final
orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging
the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch
as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end
to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire
proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be
done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against
an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any
remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:10 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.22 of 46
move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the
Constitution even against an order framing charges against
the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an
appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works
serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. V. Fazru” {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
“Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines
interlocutory order thus:
“An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given
during the progress of an action, but which does not finally
dispose of the rights of the parties.”
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an
interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an
order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally
decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory
order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an
interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular
aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a
proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however
conclude the trial at all.”
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:14 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.23 of 46
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal
revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled as “Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of
Investigation” {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
“15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the
exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally
severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a
complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision
jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore,
what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can
exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass
final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that
in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction – that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or
conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision
jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned,
the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not
Digitally
an interlocutory order. signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:19 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.24 of 46
21. The concept of an intermediate order was
further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of
Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an
interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle
that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in
nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the
proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such
intermediate orders immediately come to mind – an order
taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an
accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie
these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order
taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed,
it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that
person resulting in a final order in his or her favour.
Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has
the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in
a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate
order is one which if passed in a certain way, the
proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way,
the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:24 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.25 of 46
was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a
revision petition was filed challenging the taking of
cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said:
(K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11)
“11. ….. It is now well-nigh settled that in
deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2)
of the Code, the sole test is not whether such
order was passed during the interim stage
(vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu
Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla
v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande
v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by
upholding the objections raised by a party, it
would result in culminating the proceedings,
if so any order passed on such objections
would not be merely interlocutory in nature
as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code.
In the present case, if the objection raised by
the appellants were upheld by the Court the
entire prosecution proceedings would have
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:32 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.26 of 46
been terminated. Hence, as per the said
standard, the order was revisable.”
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the
appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a
revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can
be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no
obligation to entertain a revision petition – such a petition
can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is
inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only
against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an
order which if set aside would result in the culmination of
the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only
two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case
only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the
result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the
entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in
the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court
is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary
power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C.”
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:37 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.27 of 46
“Neelam Mahajan & Anr. V. The State & Ors.” {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29}
that:-
“…….. In this regard catena of judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while
holding that the meaning of the two words “final” and
“interlocutory” has to be considered separately in
relation to the particular purpose for which it is required.
However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which
determines the principal matter in question is termed final
and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not
conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the
subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue
puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one
but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the
ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order.”
11. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has
challenged the impugned order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/
complainant was dismissed. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:42 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.28 of 46
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is
interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Nishu Wadhwa V. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr.” {WP (CRL 1253/2016 and
Crl. MA No.6591/2016 decided on 10/01/2017} that “therefore, an order
dismissing or allowing an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an
interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is
maintainable”.
Hence, the present revision petition qua the dismissal of the
application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
12. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision
petition on merits.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has
challenged the impugned order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant
was dismissed.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss law relating
to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The scheme of Cr.P.C. is such that an Officer In-charge of a
Police Station has to initiate investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:46 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.29 of 46
Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the first information report, on receiving the
information of the commission of a cognizable offence. From the plain
reading of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., it is manifestly clear that if any
information disclosing a cognizable offence is made before an officer
incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of
the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the
substance thereof in the prescribed form to register a case on the basis of
information pertaining to cognizable offence. But when the police officers
do not register a case disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and
complaint in this regard is made to the Magistrate, then under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. ‘ may ‘
order investigation. The expression used herein is ‘ may ‘ and not ‘ shall ‘ or ‘
must ‘. The expression ‘ shall ‘ or ‘ must’ implies that the provision is
mandatory and expression ‘ may ‘ gives discretion to the Magistrate.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as
“Devarapalli Lakshinarayana Reddy V. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors.” {AIR
1976 SC 1672} that:-
“It is well settled that when a Magistrate
receives a complaint, he is not bound to take
cognizance if the facts alleged in the
complaint, disclose the commission of an
offence. This is clear from the use of the words
” may take cognizance” which in the context in
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:51 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.30 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
which they occur cannot be equated with “must
take cognizance”. The word ” may ” gives a
discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on
a reading of the complaint he finds that the
allegations therein disclose a cognizable
offence and the forwarding of the complaint to
the police for investigation under Section
156(3) will be conducive to justice and save
the valuable time of the Magistrate from being
wasted in enquiring into a matter which was
primarily the duty of the police to investigate,
he will be justified in adopting that course as an
alternative to taking cognizance of the offence,
himself.
This raises the incidental question: What is
meant by “taking cognizance of an offence” by
a Magistrate within the contemplation of
Section 190? This expression has not been
defined in the Code. But from the scheme of
the Code, the content and marginal heading of
Section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV
under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is
clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a
Court only when the Court takes cognizance of
the offence alleged therein. The ways in which
such cognizance can be taken are set out in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1).
Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken
cognizance of the offence will depend on the
circumstances of the particular case including
the mode in which the case is sought to be
instituted and the nature of the preliminary Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:02:55 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.31 of 46
action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly
speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the
Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of
proceeding under Section 200 and the
succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code
of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of
the offence within the meaning of Section
190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under
Chapter XV, he has in the judicial exercise of
his discretion, taken action of some other kind,
such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose
of investigation, or ordering investigation by
the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be
said to have taken cognizance of any offence”.
It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as “M/s.
Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V. State” {2001 IV AD (DELHI) 625} that :-
“A Magistrate must apply his mind before
passing an order under Section 156(3) of the
Code and must not pass these orders
mechanically on the mere asking by the
complainant. These powers ought to be
exercised primarily in those cases where the
allegations are quite serious or evidence is
beyond the reach of complainant or custodial
interrogation appears to be necessary for some
recovery of article or discovery of fact.”
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:00 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.32 of 46
It was held by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as
“Gulab Chand Upadhyaya V. State of U.P.” {2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 514}
that :-
“The scheme of Cr. P. C. and the prevailing
circumstances require that the option to direct
the registration of the case and its investigation
by the police should be exercised. Where some
“investigation” is required which is of a nature
that is not possible for the private complainant,
and which can only be done by the police upon
whom statute has conferred the powers
essential for investigation, for example:-
1 Where the full details of the accused are not
known to the complainant and the same can
be determined only as a result of
investigation, or
2 Where recovery of abducted person or stolen
property is required to be made by conducting
raids or searches of suspected places or
persons, or
3 Where for the purpose of launching a
successful prosecution of the accused,
evidence is required to be collected and
preserved. To illustrate by example, cases
may be visualized where for production
before court at the trial (a) Sample of blood
soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for
fixing the place of incident, or (b) recovery of
case property is to be made and kept sealed, Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:05 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.33 of 46
or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, or (d) preparation of inquest
report, or (e) witnesses are not known and
have to be found out or discovered through
the process of investigation”.
It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as
“Pawan Verma V. SHO, PS Model Town & Ors.” {2009(2) JCC 1000
Delhi}, that:-
“It is not that in every case merely on the
asking of the petitioner the Court must direct
registration of an FIR unless the Court is
satisfied with the preliminary evidence
which is to be submitted by the complainant
with an FIR must be registered……….”.
It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as
“Mohd Salim V. State” {175(2010) DLT 473} that :-
“The use of the expression may in Sub-
section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves
no doubt that the power conferred upon the
Magistrate is discretionary and he is not
bound to direct investigation by the police
even if the allegations made in the complaint
disclose commission of a cognizable offence.
In the facts and circumstances of a given case,
the Magistrate may feel that the matter does Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:09 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.34 of 46
not require investigation by the Police and
can be proved by the complainant himself,
without any assistance from the Police. In
that case, he may, instead of directing
investigation by the Police, straightaway
take cognizance of the alleged offence and
proceed under Section 200 of the Code by
examining the complainant and his witnesses,
if any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct
investigation by the Police only where the
assistance of the Investigating Agency is
necessary and the Court feels that the cause of
justice is likely to suffer in the absence of
investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is
not expected to mechanically direct
investigation by the Police without first
examining whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, investigation by
the State machinery is actually required or
not. If the allegations made in the complaint
are simple, where the Court can straightaway
proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is
expected to record evidence and proceed
further in the matter, instead of passing the
buck to the police under section 156(3) of the
Code. Of course, if the allegations made in
the complaint require complex and
complicated investigation of which cannot be
undertaken without active assistance and
expertise of the State machinery, it would
only be appropriate for the Magistrate to
direct investigation by the Police. The
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:14 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.35 of 46
Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act
merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a
judicial approach while considering an
application seeking investigation by the
Police”.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Mohd. Yusuf Khan V. State & Anr.” {2014 (3) JCC 1665} that :-
“The Magistrate is not supposed to act
mechanically and direct registration of FIR in
each and every case in a routine and casual
manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set
into motion on the mere asking of a party…..”It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Kusum Lata V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.” {Crl. MC No.1880/2020
decided on 19/04/2021 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
“it is clear from the scheme of section 156, where
the police fail in its duty to register and
investigate a cognizable offence, the aggrieved
person may file a complaint before the concerned
Magistrate. Where the Magistrate receives a
complaint the word ‘may’ give a discretion to the
Magistrate in the matter. Two courses are open to
the Court; either take cognizance under Section
190 or may forward the complaint to the police
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation.
Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of a Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:19 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.36 of 46
particular case, Magistrate may take cognizance
on the basis of the complaint instituted before
him and may adopt the procedure provided under
sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. and if there is no
substance in the prima facie evidence adduced by
the complainant, the complaint may be dismissed
under section 203 Cr.P.C.
In view of above facts, observation made by the
courts below and the law discussed, the material
facts of the present case are well within the
knowledge of the petitioner including the
identity of the accused persons. Hence, she can
establish her case while leading evidence before
the trial court under section 200 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the
orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellant
Court”.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Anjuri Kumari V. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.” {WP (CRL)
1210/2023 and CRL. M.A.11298/2023 decided on 29/11/2023 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
“In view of the discussions mentioned
hereinabove, I am of the view that the directions
for investigation under section 156 (3) of the
Code cannot be given by the Magistrate
mechanically. Such a direction can be given only
on application of mind by the Magistrate. The
Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:24 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.37 of 46
the police even if all allegations made in the
complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable
offence. Each case has to be viewed depending
upon the facts and circumstances involved
therein. In the facts and circumstances of a given
case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the
complainant can prove the facts alleged in the
complaint without the assistance of the police. In
such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the
complaint under Section 200 of the Code and
examine witnesses produced by the complainant.
The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by
the police if the evidence is required to be
collected with the assistance of the police. In the
present case, all the facts and evidence are within
the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can
adduce during the inquiry conducted by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section
200 of the Code.”
13. After referring the Lalita Kumari case (supra), it was held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Ramdev Food Products
Private Limited V. State of Gujarat” { AIR 2015 SC 1742} that :-
“20 It has been held, for the same reasons, that
direction by the Magistrate for investigation
Under Section 156(3) cannot be given
mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K.Aiyappa :
(2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed:
11. The scope of Section 156(3) Code of Criminal
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:30 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.38 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Procedure came up for consideration before this
Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud
Saiyed case : (2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the
requirement of the application of mind by the
Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction Under
Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is
exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section
156(3) or Section 200 Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his
mind, in such a case, the Special
Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter Under
Section 156(3) against a public servant without a
valid sanction order. The application of mind by
the Magistrate should be reflected in the order.
The mere statement that he has gone through the
complaint, documents and heard the complainant,
as such, as reflected in the order, will not be
sufficient. After going through the complaint,
documents and hearing the complainant, what
weighed with the Magistrate to order
investigation Under Section 156(3) Code of
Criminal Procedure, should be reflected in the
order, though a detailed expression of his views is
neither required nor warranted. We have already
extracted the order passed by the learned Special
Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons
for ordering investigation.”
The above observations apply to category
of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari
(supra). Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:34 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.39 of 46
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding
that the direction Under Section 156(3) is to be
issued, only after application of mind by the
Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take
cognizance and does not find it necessary to
postpone issuance of process and finds a case
made out to proceed forthwith, direction under
the said provision is issued. In other words, where
on account of credibility of information available,
or weighing the interest of justice it is considered
appropriate to straightaway direct investigation,
such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate
takes cognizance and postpones issuance of
process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to
determine “existence of sufficient ground to
proceed”. Category of cases falling under Para
120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra) may fall Under
Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines
available from the scheme of the Code, exercise
of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by
interest of justice from case to case.”
14. The criminal complaint of the complainant/ revisionist u/s. 200
Cr.P.C. is pending before the Ld. Trial Court for pre-summoning evidence.
In the ATR/status report filed by SI Anuj Mor before the Ld.
Trial Court, it is mentioned that:-
“It is submitted that the present petition u/s 156(3) CrPC was
filed by Mr. Shivanu Mehta against Mr. Kartar Singh & Ors
wherein the petitioner alleged Mr. Jaspreet Singh & Ors of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:39 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.40 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
theft, cheating, criminal trespass, criminal conspiracy and
threat to kill etc. The complainant alleged that he is the rightful
owner of Shop No. 18B, Ground floor, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He
further alleged that in the month of January 2017 he lost the
original documents of above shop while shifting his house from
Ganesh Nagar to Hari Nagar, Delhi. The complainant also
alleged that the accused persons forged his SPA and on the basis
of that succeeded in obtaining the possession of complainant’s
shop in 2017 from the Hon’ble court and the complainant later
on 06/7/2017 took the possession back. FIR NO. 274/2019 is
also pending investigation at DIU west in this regard.
The complainant further alleged that he was arrested in a
false case of rape i.e. FIR No. 336/2019, PS Hari Nagar on
18/08/2019. During his custody at PS Hari Nagar the petitioner
was also made to sign several judicial and non- judicial papers
forcefully. The petitioner also alleged that prior to the arrest of
his brother Ankush in the same rape case on 06/11/2019 the
above shop was in the possession of petitioner. On 04/10/2020
after his bail in rape case when the petitioner reached his shop
he found that his shop was open and some other persons are
running the shop. The complainant alleged that the alleged
persons break opened his shop and stole all the stuff from the
shop and took the possession of his shop.
During the enquiry of present petition the petitioner
joined the enquiry and produced a written statement wherein
he again repeated the allegations levelled earlier in the petition.
The petitioner was asked if he could produce any public witness
to support his claim/allegations but he refused to produce any
PW and further wishes to produce PW before the Hon’ble court.
The complainant even refused to disclose name and address of
the PW if any. The complainant was also asked to produce or
disclose address of workers of his shop who used to work at his Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:44 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.41 of 46
shop at that time but he did not provide any address. The
statement of the complainant is annexed as Annexure-1.
During the enquiry the statement of alleged Kartar Singh
was recorded wherein he submitted that he had purchased the
property in question from petitioner Shivanu Mehta in the
month of June-2019 for a consideration value of 14,20,000. The
alleged Kartar Singh further submitted that on the request of
petitioner Shivanu Mehta he paid all consideration amount in
cash because he did not want/could enter in to any registered
sale deed of above property before completion of five years of
taking possession of above shop after legal proceedings.
Alleged Kartar Singh also submitted that on the request of
petitioner Shivanu Mehta they prepared mutual transfer papers.
The original chain of papers are also in the custody of alleged
Kartar Singh.
Alleged Kartar Singh further submitted that in June 2019
he took the physical possession of the shop from petitioner
Shivanu Mehta and running the same since then. The statement
of alleged Kartar Singh is attached as Annexure-2. Alleged
Kartar Singh also produced signed/attested photocopy of
complete previous chain of documents of property in question
which is attached as Annexure-3.
It is further submitted that the alleged Kanwal Jeet Singh
and Jaspreet Singh also joined the enquiry and submitted that
they are working with alleged Kartar Singh at property in
question since June 2021. They further submitted that they
started their job in June 2021 and continued the same till now.
The statement of alleged Kanwal Jeet Singh and Jaspreet Singh
is attached as Annexure 4&5 respectively. The statement of
alleged Damodar Yadav & Sharvan Yadav was also recorded
during enquiry wherein he refused all the allegations levelled
against him. Alleged Sharvan Yadav further submitted that he Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:49 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.42 of 46
has nothing to do with the property in question. He had never
claimed/taken the ownership/possession of property in
question. The statement of alleged Sharvan yadav is attached as
Annexure-6.
During the enquiry the statement of two public witnesses
Mr. Bhupender Singh and Balvinder Singh, produced by
alleged Kartar Singh, was also recorded wherein both the PW
submitted that they are working at Shop no. 18 from last 10
years. The PW further submitted that the physical possession of
the property in question is with alleged Kartar Singh since June
2019. The statement of PW Bhupender Singh and Balvinder
Singh is attached as Annexure 7&8 respectively.
There are two witnesses namely Vijay Yadav and Sher
Singh in the mutual transferred property papers produced by
alleged Kartar Singh. The statement of both the witnesses were
also recorded wherein the supported the facts
disclosed/submitted by the alleged Kartar Singh. The statement
of Vijay Yadav and Sher Singh is attached as Annexure-9&10.
The signature of petitioner Shivanu Mehta also looks
apparently same in the mutually property transferred papers
produced by alleged Kartar Singh. The supporting documents
filed by petitioner Shivanu Mehta to support his allegations are
also attached as Annexure-11 for kind perusal.
From the enquiry conducted so far no cognizable offence
is made out. However, the undersigned will be abided by any
order/direction passed by the Hon’ble court.”
In the complaint case before the Ld. Trial Court, the
revisionist/complainant stated to have filed the photocopies of documents
i.e. swapping machine slip, bank record slips, BSES payment slips & bills,
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:54 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.43 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
copies of FIR No. 430/2017, PS Paschim Vihar West & FIR No. 274/2019,
PS Tilak Nagar, CM office report, notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C., photographs,
EDC machine report, Aadhaar card, PAN card, ITR of the complainant,
PAN card of company, GST certificate, GST R-32B, lost report of
documents, bank statements, trading license, purchasing bills of goods,
charge-sheets of FIR No. 430/2017 & FIR No. 336/2019, pendrive
containing video of shop and Local Commissioner Report. Voluminous
documents (458 pages) stated to be filed by the complainant in the
complaint case in support of his allegations/case.
Copies of property documents in respect of shop in question
stated to be filed alongwith ATR/status report of SI Anuj Mor.
Complainant Shivanu Mehta and respondent no.6 Kartar
Singh, both are claiming themselves to be the owner of the shop in question.
Filing of copies of the aforesaid documents shows that all the
documentary evidence are within the reach and knowledge of the
revisionist/complainant and nothing is to be collected for which the
assistance of the police is required.
In view of the above, it is clear that the parties are ascertained.
The facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the
revisionist/complainant. There is nothing for which the police assistance is
additionally necessary to be called for. The revisionist/ complainant is in a
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:03:59 -0100CR No. 401/2022 Page No.44 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
position to lead evidence in the matter. The evidence is within the reach of
revisionist/complainant and no custodial interrogation of accused is
necessary for recovery of article or discovery of fact.
15. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very
limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr.” {AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 687} that :-
“The scope of interference in a revision
petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled
that Section 397 Cr.P.C. gives the High Courts
or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider
the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding inter se an order and as to the regularity
of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is
also well settled that while considering the
legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or
a conclusion, normally the revising court does
not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence
of the case. A court in revision considers the
material only to satisfy itself about the legality
and propriety of the findings, sentence and
order and refrains from substituting its own
conclusion on an elaborate consideration of
evidence.”
16. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:04:04 –
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.45 of 46
case laws relied upon by the revisionist, however, the same are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the case laws
referred by this Court, this Court is held that there is no illegality,
impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial
Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionist is
dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this
judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:04:09 -
0100
Announced in the open Court
on 28/05/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.46 of 46