Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Kriti Gupta vs Mandeep Singh on 17 December, 2025

     IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
           WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI


CR Rev. No. 229/2025
CNR No. DLWT01-006397-2025

Ms. Kriti Gupta
182, Tower S, DLF Capital Greens,
Moti Nagar, Najafgarh Road,
Industrial Area, Delhi - 110015.                                                .... Revisionist

                                   Versus

1.         Mr. Mandeep Singh
           WZ 412, Gali No.1, Sri Nagar,
           Shakur Basti, RS, Delhi- 110034.

2.         Mr. Harjeet Singh
           WZ 412, Gali No.1, Sri Nagar,
           Shakur Basti, RS, Delhi- 110034.

3.         Mrs. Navneet Kaur
           WZ 412, Gali No.1, Sri Nagar,
           Shakur Basti, RS, Delhi- 110034.                                     .... Respondents

                      Date of filing of revision petition                   :   02.07.2025
                      Date of arguments                                     :   11.12.2025
                      Date of judgment                                      :   17.12.2025

JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the revisionist, assailing the order of the Ld. JMFC-04, West District, THC, Delhi dated 21.04.2025 in CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 14 Complaint Case No. 943/2024 titled as Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. whereby her application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. / 175 (3) BNSS was dismissed and the matter was posted for pre-summoning evidence.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present criminal revision petition are that :-

2.1 In August 2022, Flat No. 1104, Tower-1, CSP Unit, DLF Capital Greens, Moti Nagar, Delhi was purchased by the family of the complainant and registered in the name of her mother. In September 2022, the respondents contacted the revisionist though a broker, namely Mr. Sandeep Singh as being the builders and contractors for doing the furnishing and finishing work of the said flat. On 13.09.2022, the respondents gave a quotation of Rs.6,25,000/- for the work and assured her that they would hand over the fully finished flat in time. The revisionist made a cash payment of Rs. 20,000/- on the same date. On 15.09.2022, the respondents took another sum of Rs. 80,000/- from her. On 05.10.2022, a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred to the respondents. On the said day, the respondents promised that they would deliver the flat in 30-45 days. With the hope of getting her flat, the revisionist on 19.10.2022 made payment of a sum of Rs.

1,50,000/-. The respondents brought some material to the flat and started work, but kept delaying and threatening to discontinue the work if further payment was not made.

CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 14

2.2 On 27.11.2022, the revisionist made a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the insistence of the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents stopped responding. Upon inquiry, the revisionist came to know that the respondents had removed all the material, fittings, wirings and fixtures from the flat including the material which had not been installed by them and absconded to Dubai. They locked the premises and did not hand over the keys. On 12.05.2023, the revisionist spoke to respondent No.1, who promised to complete the work. On 29.06.2023, the revisionist again paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- to the respondents and they promised to hand over the said flat by 10.07.2023. The revisionist asked for the refund of the money. The respondents agreed to hand over the flat and refund the money. On 13.08.2023, the accused finally handed over the keys of the flat. The revisionist saw that all the fixtures and electricals had been stolen. Also, the money and valuable from the almirah had been stolen. The revisionist demanded her money back however, since August 2023, the respondents have not answered her calls. The revisionist has claimed that the respondents have cheated her for a sum of Rs. 10,55,000/- besides committing theft from her flat.

3. In view of the above events, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC on 30.04.2024. Status report was called by the Ld. JMFC. Vide the impugned order dated 21.04.2025, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 14 dismissed, the Ld. JMFC took cognizance of the complaint and the revisionist was called upon to lead pre-summoning evidence.

4. The revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the Ld. JMFC has erred in law, in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, despite the disclosure of multiple cognizable offences. The Ld. JMFC erroneously concluded that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature; she failed to see that the case warranted police investigation in order to demonstrate the intention of the respondents to cheat and misappropriate funds from the outset and; she has wrongly criticized the revisionist for not giving details of the stolen cash, valuables and documents. At the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC, the Ld. JMFC is limited to assessing whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. Also the remark of the Ld. JMFC questioning why valuables and documents were kept in an unfinished house is unfounded and prejudicial. It is customary in the community of the revisionist to place such items in a new home for prosperity and good fortune even before formally shifting.

5. The further ground raised by the revisionist is that the Ld. JMFC failed to consider the ATR filed by the police and other supporting materials, including statements of witnesses and payment acknowledgments, which corroborate the complainant/revisionist's statements and support the need for police CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 14 investigation. The Ld. JMFC chose to brush aside the material findings of the ATR and formed a contrary view without any independent inquiry, failing to recognise that Section 156(3) CrPC is specifically designed to initiate a police investigation to further disclose the commission of cognizable offences.

6. No reply was filed by the respondents. Arguments were addressed by Mr. Nipun Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Vijay Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the record carefully. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist reiterated the grounds raised in the revision petition. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that where the revisionist was residing in another flat in the same complex and the keys were with the respondents, there was no question of her placing valuables in the unfinished flat. The issue between the parties was over money and was purely a civil dispute. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

7. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 of the Ld. JMFC reads as under :-

"..........
As per settled previsions of law, upon an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC seeking directions for registration of FIR, a Magistrate is expected to apply their mind to the facts disclosed rather than mechanically ordering registration of FIR simply upon the allegation that a cognizable offence has been committed. In the present matter, it is noted that not only has the complainant failed to mention what amount of cash, which kinds of valuables or which specific documents were stolen from the house, but it is CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 14 also not specified why an almirah containing such valuable documents and cash was kept in a house which was unfinished and where the complainant had not shifted into or started residing yet. The complaint, at this point, is drafted vaguely which is notable as the complainant herself is an Advocate and would know that such particulars of stolen articles are important details. The ATR filed by the IO is also conspicuously silent regarding any information given by the complainant about her stolen articles. The ATR has remained limited to the breach of contract between the complainant and the respondents.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines to decide applications u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a case titled as Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012) DOD.
19.03.15, wherein it was held:-
"26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 14 advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR".

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has recently observed that it is becoming a matter of practice to seek invocation of criminal law where dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, and has deprecated such practice. From the facts of the present case and the observations made above, the undersigned is of the opinion that the present complaint primarily discloses a civil dispute arising out of a breach of contract between the parties. Even to this point, complainant has not filed any agreement or document to show what the agreed upon arrangement was between her and the respondents with respect to payments and timelines. The allegation regarding theft of personal possessions from the house has also been made without any particulars or substance on record. The complainant has even failed to mention the day, month or year on which she discovered such theft. The ATR has also contradicted the complainant in CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 14 stating that some partial work had been done at the flat before the next contractor took over.

Direction for registration of an FIR cannot be given on basis of such vague and unsubstantiated allegations. The only cogent allegation regards the monetary transaction between the complainant and the respondents. The facts and circumstances of the same are such that the complainant is in possession of the details and can summon witnesses, including the broker, if required. The respondents were duly served notice so their whereabouts are not unknown. No investigation is required at this stage. Further, if in the future any need would arise, police assistance can be taken U/s 202 CrPC. None of the evidence, if any, in the present case is beyond the reach of the complainant. Accordingly, the present application u/s 156 (3) of Code of Criminal is dismissed. In the facts of the present case, the undersigned deems it appropriate that the complainant be directed to prove the allegations made by her on oath. Therefore, the undersigned takes cognizance of the complaint and complainant is called upon to bring pre-summoning evidence on 23.07.2025."

8. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 30.04.2024. The ATR was filed, the relevant part of which reads as under :-

"It is submitted that on receipt of the complaint u/s 156 3 CrPC. I met with the complainant Ms Kriti Gupta and asked about the facts of the complaint who apprised that she is residing on rent at S-182. DLF Capital Greens. Moti Nagar. Delhi and practicing as a lawyer in various courts. Complainant family purchased a flat bearing No. 1104, Tower 1, CSP Unit, DLF Capital Greens, Moti Nagar, New Delhi in raw condition. The alleged persons approached the complainant through one dealer Sandeep Singh and presented themselves that they are qualified architect and have been engaged in the business of construction since past many years. The complainant and the alleged persons agreed upon the studio apartment complete work i.e. kitchen and bathroom fittings, marble, wood work (bed with box, television cabinet, cabinet in bathrooms, modular kitchen, veneer works), electronics (airconditioner, chimney, exhaust, fans, switches). Complainant gave the contract to alleged persons in the tune of Rs. 6,25,000/- for the above said work.
CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 14
Complainant paid Rs 20,000/- to the alleged persons on 13.09.22 but despite that the alleged person did not initiate the work. Complainant approached the alleged persons to initiate the furnishing work at house. The alleged persons again demanded to pay some more money and complainant again paid him Rs. 80,000/-. In this way complainant paid Rs. 5,55,000/- to the alleged persons but they have not done her work and left incomplete. Complainant asked him to complete her work but he did not pay heed to her words. The labour complained to the complainant that the alleged persons did not provide them the raw material and also not paid their wages.
Enquiry was conducted into the matter with the complainant and she was asked to provide the copy of agreement executed between them. Complainant apprised that she has not done any agreement with the alleged persons. Complainant provided the transaction detail and chat history in which the alleged Mandeep Singh admitted the payment made by the complainant to him. The alleged persons were served notice to join the enquiry and they visited the police station and sought time to submit their reply. Thereafter, they were asked many times to join the enquiry but they did not come.
Complainant apprised that she has completed her pending work through one Rajman Yadav. In this regard, Rajman Yadav s/o Sh. Sita Ram Yadav r/o H.No. 695,Gali No. 13, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat, New Delhi. In this regard, Rajman Yadav was examined and his statement was recorded in which he stated that earlier he was doing work under Mandeep Singh but he was not providing them the raw material and also not paying the wages of labour. Thereafter, he left the work with Mandeep Singh. After sometime, on the request of complainant and Sandeep Singh (Broker) Rajman Yadav ready to complete the pending work of complainant in the total amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Rajman Yadav also stated in his statement that when he took the contract of complainant flat, there was only POP work and some tile's work completed and rest all work was in completed.
During, the course of enquiry Sandeep Singh was also examined and he stated that Mandeep Singh has not completed the complainant work and later on the same was completed by Rajman Yadav. Complainant paid again Rs. 2,20,000/- for furnishing of her house work. The alleged persons taken money from the complainant for furnishing her house work and after getting the payment of Rs. 5,55,000/- they left her work without intimation."
CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 14

9. This brings us to the issue if in the facts of the present case the Ld. JMFC had no discretion in the matter and was bound to order registration of FIR. The order directing the police to investigate the case are not to be passed mechanically by the Ld. JMFC under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/0134/2025, has held as under:

"24. Thus, there are prerequisites to be followed by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a discretionary remedy as the provision proceeds with the word 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so. He should pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offences and also about the necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police. It is, thus, not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate should direct the Police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses, with the assistance of the court or otherwise. The issue of jurisdiction also becomes important at that stage and cannot be ignored.
25. 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 Criminal Procedure. Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 14 active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The 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."

10. The mere claim of a cognizable offence is not a reason for the Ld. JMFC to order investigation. In Seema Taneja v. State and Ors. MANU/DE/8284/2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:

"16. In Mohd. Salim v. State MANU/DE/0575/2010 : 175(2010) DLT 473, a learned Single Judge of this court, in para 11, has held thus:-

"11. The use of the expression "may" in Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that 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 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 CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 14 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 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.

17. In consideration of the aforementioned discussions, it is my legal opinion that the issuance of directives for investigation pursuant to Section 156(3) of the Code should not be carried out in a perfunctory manner by the Magistrate. Such directives ought to be issued only after a thoughtful deliberation, as the Magistrate is not obliged to order a police investigation solely based on the complaint's assertion of elements constituting a cognizable offense, thereby necessitating a judicious exercise of discretion.

18. Each case necessitates a careful examination of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding it. In the particular context of a given case, the Magistrate may determine that the complainant is capable of substantiating the alleged facts without relying on police intervention. In such instances, the Magistrate may choose to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code, conducting an inquiry and examining witnesses presented by the complainant. However, if the collection of evidence requires the involvement of the police, the Magistrate should then direct a police investigation. In the present matter, all pertinent facts and evidence lie within the revisionist's knowledge, and these can be presented during the inquiry conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate pursuant to Section 200 of the Code."

(Emphasis added)

11. In Azad Kaur v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

MANU/DE/2575/2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:

"8. Chapter XII of the Code deals with information to the police and its powers to investigate the offences. Clause (3) thereof lays down that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 14 may order investigation by the police. This Chapter provides additional remedy to a complainant whose complaint is either not entertained by the police or if he is not satisfied with the investigation being conducted by the police.
9. Upon receiving the complaint, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint, upon which, he may proceed at once to take cognizance or may order the police for registration of the FIR and its investigation. Before Magistrate orders for investigation by the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC, he has to apply its mind to know whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out a case.
10. Where a complaint filed before the Magistrate contains simple allegations, it is the duty of the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations itself. The order directing the police to investigate the case are not to be passed mechanically. The Magistrate is not always bound to pass an order for the registration of the FIR and investigation upon receipt of application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC, disclosing a cognizable offence. The Magistrate may use his discretion judiciously and if he is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it will be proper to treat the application as a complaint case, then he may proceed according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code. The use of word "shall" in Section 154 (3) and the use of word "may" in Section 156 (3) of the Code makes the intention of the legislation amply clear. If the legislature intended that Magistrate had no options but to direct the investigation and the registration of the FIR, it could have used the word "shall". The use of word "may" therefore indicates that Magistrate has discretion in the matter and can in appropriate cases, refuse to order registration."

(Emphasis added)

12. Considering the facts of the present case, it has been rightly observed by the Ld. JMFC that no agreement between the revisionist and the respondents has been filed with regard to the nature of work assigned, timelines for performance and consideration for the same. Also, the particulars of the theft of personal possessions from the said flat have not been mentioned. The facts remains that the proposed respondents are known to the CR Rev No. 229/2025 Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 14 revisionist. The revisionist with her complaint has attached photograph of RC of respondent No.1, a screenshot showing NEFT transaction dated 05.10.2022, screenshots of Whatsapp conversations with 'Mandeep DLF CSP' (respondent No.1) alongwith what appears to be a transcript of the said conversations. The evidence is in her possession. Thus, there is no purpose of ordering investigation. By dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is not as if the rights of the revisionist have been foreclosed. All the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the revisionist that can be presented during the proceedings conducted by the Ld. JMFC pursuant to Section 200 Cr.P.C. When need be, if any other evidence is required, it can be summoned with the assistance of the police at the relevant stage under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

13. In the light of the above observations, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. JMFC-04 (West) dated 21.04.2025. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court along with copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI CHOUDHARY Announced in the open Court CHOUDHARY Date: 

on 17th December, 2025                                             2025.12.17
                                                                   17:37:52 +0530
                                                   (Dr. Aditi Choudhary)
                                               Principal District & Sessions Judge
                                                West : Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi


CR Rev No. 229/2025                  Kriti Gupta v. Mandeep Singh & Ors.                  Page 14 of 14