Delhi District Court
Dinesh Kumar Jain vs Rajeshwar Kumar Jain on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-005023-2024
Cr. Rev. No. 192/2024
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain
S/o Late Padam Sen Jain
R/o 5/13, Subhash Gali
Vishvas Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
...... Petitioner
Versus
Rajeshwar Kumar Jain
S/o Late Padam Sen Jain
R/o 5/13, Subhash Gali
Vishvas Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-110032
...... Respondent
Date of Institution : 07.09.2024
Date of reserving Order : 07.08.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.08.2025
ORDER
1. By way of the present revision petition under Section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:26 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 1 of 10 MM-05, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in complaint CT Case No. 3930/2017 titled as Rajeshwar Kumar Jain v. Dinesh Kumar Jain whereby petitioner was summoned for the offences under Sections 420/406/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. For the sake of convenience, I shall be referring to the parties as per their nomenclature before the Ld. Trial Court and therefore, the petitioner shall be referred to as 'accused' and respondent shall be referred to as 'complainant'
3. Briefly stated, a complaint case was earlier filed by the complainant vide which he averred that he along with his father Sh. Padam Sen Jain were running a business under the name and style of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co. for more than 30 years. A current bank account was opened for this firm in Indian Bank, Shahdara Branch, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Father of complainant died on 08.05.2010 and thereafter, complainant remained the only authorized signatory to operate this bank account. It was alleged that complainant later on came to know about transfer of Rs.3,75,000/- by cheque no. 752339 dated 11.04.2017 and Rs.2,75,000/- by cheque no. 752341 dated 04.05.2017, through Vivek Vihar Branch from the aforesaid account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co., which cheques were never issued by the complainant. It was alleged that on inquiry, complainant was informed by the bank officials that the said two cheques were signed by accused Dinesh Kumar Jain. It was alleged that complainant had not authorised accused Dinesh AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:31 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 2 of 10 Jain as signing authority in respect of aforesaid bank account, but bank failed to give any satisfactory reply to his letter. It was further alleged that complainant came to know that his bag containing cheque books and some other documents related to this firm were removed from his possession. Thus, complainant realized that accused Dinesh Jain in collusion with some bank officials had illegally transferred aforesaid amount from the account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co.. It was further alleged that when complainant requested accused to return the amount, he threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant was thus, constrained to file complaint against the accused, but no action was taken by the police.
4. A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was consequently filed by the complainant against the accused before the Court of Ld. MM, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 16.11.2017 wherein complainant examined himself as CW-1 and CW-2 Jaya Mishra, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank in support of his allegations in pre-summoning evidence. After hearing arguments on the point of summoning, Ld. MM-05, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi summoned accused Dinesh Kumar Jain vide impugned order dated 28.06.2024. The relevant excerpt of the impugned order is reproduced as under:-
".... In the facts of the present case as CW1 has testified that neither he nor M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber and Plastic co. inducted Dinesh Kumar Jain as authorized signatory and in view of testimony of CW2 that in normal course the cheque drawn on a account is not passed if stamp of another account is there, there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused. Further, in view of the above material wherein cheque was passed in Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:37 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 3 of 10 contravention with general practice/ normal course of business of bank, it appears that the offence was committed with conspiracy with other co-accused persons.
In view of the above-mentioned observation, issue summons to accused Dinesh Kumar Jain for offences under Section 420/ 406/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC on filing of PF returnable on 12.09.2024...."
5. Being aggrieved of the abovesaid order, the accused has assailed the same on inter-alia following grounds:-
(i) That the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 is bad in law, non-speaking, cryptic and passed by Ld. Trial Court without application of judicial mind;
(ii) That Ld. MM did not appreciate the evidence of bank witness i.e. CW-2 who categorically stated that the petitioner is also a signatory in the account in question;
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the cheques produced by the petitioner were cleared by the bank without any objection regarding petitioner being not a signatory of the account;
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged offences under Section 420/ 406/ 468/ 471/ 120-B are not made out in any manner and a civil dispute between the parties was being given a criminal colour by the complainant.
6. Reply to the present revision petition was filed on behalf of complainant wherein it was averred that present petition is liable to be dismissed as same is based on conjectures and surmises. It was averred that this revision petition is abuse of process of law and the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 is just, reasonable and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.22
17:29:41 +0530
Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 4 of 10
7. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. In the case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123, Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the scope of revision jurisdiction was pleased to observe as under:-
".... 14. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court under Section 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction...."
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204 had also on similar lines held that-
".... The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings...."
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:46 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 5 of 10
10. In the case of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 Hon'ble Delhi High Court was further pleased to hold following:-
".... 9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC 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...."
11. Thus, in the light of aforesaid legal propositions, scope of interference in the revision petition is very limited and the revisionist court is not expected to substitute its own view with that of court below unless the order passed by the Court below suffers from jurisdictional error or patent infirmity/ illegality.
12. In the present case, it was categorically deposed by CW-1 during his pre-summoning evidence that after the death of his father on 08.05.2010, he was the only authorized signatory for operating bank account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co.. CW-1 further deposed that he had received information from Indian Bank, Shahdara Branch that vide cheques bearing no. 752339 dated 11.04.2017 of Rs. 3,75,000/- and cheque bearing no. 752341 dated 04.05.2017 of Rs. 2,75,000/-, money had been withdrawn from the account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co. from Vivek Vihar Branch of Indian Bank and upon inquiry he AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:51 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 6 of 10 came to know that the same was withdrawn by accused Dinesh Kumar Jain. CW-1 deposed that when he inquired from the bank as to how Dinesh Kumar Jain was permitted to withdraw the money from the account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co., the bank could not give any satisfactory record. CW-1 further deposed that neither he nor M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co. authorized Dinesh Kumar Jain to withdraw the money. CW-1 further deposed that both the cheques are from cheque book which is missing from his office. CW-1 further alleged that upon making enquiry from Dinesh Kumar Jain, he threatened to kill him.
13. CW-2 Jaya Mishra, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank was further examined by the complainant who had brought the complete record of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co. which included account opening form, certified copy of partnership deed, balance sheet, bank statement and copies of various cheques as well as DDs i.e. Ex. CW 1/1 (colly). She further stated that as per account opening form, Dinesh Kumar Jain is not the authorized signatory of the aforesaid account. She further deposed that when a new signatory is added to the account certain documents like partnership deed, KYC of new partner, letter of request for addition of signatory on letter head of firm are collected. However, at present the said documents pertaining to Dinesh Kumar Jain as signatory were not traceable in the bank.
14. CW-2 brought specimen signature details of complainant and accused Dinesh Kumar Jain as available in the bank besides one copy of Will and certain other documents as Ex.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAINAKASH JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:29:56 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 7 of 10 CW 2/1 (colly). She deposed that there was no other document traceable in bank record which reflects that accused Dinesh Kumar Jain was included as authorized signatory in the account of firm in question apart from Ex. CW2/1 (colly). She further deposed that cheques in question drawn on the account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co. should not have been passed on the basis of signatures of accused Dinesh Kumar Jain as his specimen signatures were uploaded qua stamp of M/s Sachin Chemical Udhyog as shown in page no. 2 in Ex. CW 2/1 (colly).
15. It is primarily contended on behalf of complainant that accused had fraudulently withdrawn money from the bank account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co. by misrepresenting him to be an authorized signatory of the said account, causing unlawful loss to the complainant. It is further contended that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with some of the bank officials and placed on record false documents of him being an authorized signatory of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co., thereby deceiving the bank officials, resulting in withdrawal of the money from the bank account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co..
16. A careful perusal of the testimony of CW-2 reflects that at the time of opening of account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co., accused Dinesh Kumar Jain was not an authorized signatory of the account. Further, when a new signatory is added to an account, certain documents like new partnership deed, KYC of new partner, letter of request for addition of signatory on letter AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:30:01 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 8 of 10 head of firm are collected, however, the said documents pertaining to addition of accused Dinesh Kumar Jain could not be found in the bank. Moreover, the documents brought by CW-2 containing specimen signatures of Dinesh Kumar Jain, copy of Will, copy of partnership deed etc. i.e. Ex. CW 2/1 (colly) pertain to M/s Sachin Chemical Udhyog and not M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co.. This essentially raises suspicion qua alleged transactions carried out by the accused Dinesh Kumar Jain by presenting the cheques in question and withdrawing the amount from the account of M/s P. S. Mittal Rubber & Plastic Co.. Thus, accused Dinesh Kumar Jain was rightly summoned by Ld. Trial Court for offence under Section 420 r/w Section 120B IPC and alternatively under Section 406 r/w Section 120B IPC. Since, cheques in question were signed by Dinesh Kumar Jain himself, no question of forgery arises. Thus, the accused should not have been summoned for offences under Section 468/471 IPC.
17. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, limited scope of revisionist jurisdiction and observation as above, it is held that while Ld. Trial Court was justified in summoning the accused for offences under Sections 420/406/120B IPC, the accused should not have been summoned for offences under Section 468/471 IPC. Besides that, there is no patent illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 which warrants any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
18. Copy of this order along with Trial Court record be AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:30:23 +0530 Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 9 of 10 sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and records.
19. File be consigned to Record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.08.22
17:30:28
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 20.08.2025 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This order contains 10 pages and each paper is signed by me.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.08.22 17:30:40 +0530 (AKASH JAIN) ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI Cr Rev. No:- 192/2024 Dinesh Kumar Jain v. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain Page No. 10 of 10