Delhi District Court
Surender Thakur vs State And Ors on 30 January, 2026
DLND010007382026 Page 1 of 15
Cr Rev 62/2026
Surender Thakur
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 62/2026
In the matter of :-
Surender Thakur (through SPA)
Sh. Vishesh Raj Thakur (LR)
S/o Late Sh. Om Raj Thakur
R/o Ropri, Ropri Baloya
(44/53), Hamirpur
Himachal Pradesh-177024
Also at: N-1054, First Floor,
N Block, Mayfield Garden, Sector-51
Gurugram-122018
.....Revisionist
(represented by Ld. Counsel Ms. Riya)
Versus
1. The State of NCT of Delhi
....Respondent No. 01
(represented by Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Mukul Kumar)
2. Great Magadh Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. (Through AR)
Address: C-2, Below Union Bank,
Sector-12, Noida, UP-201301
....Respondent No. 02
3. Sh. Munna Ram (Director)
Great Magadh Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. (Through AR)
Address: C-2, Below Union Bank,
Sector-12, Noida, UP-201301
....Respondent No. 03
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.30
LALER 17:35:01 +0530
DLND010007382026 Page 2 of 15
Cr Rev 62/2026
Surender Thakur
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
4. Ms. Durgawati (Director)
Great Magadh Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. (Through AR)
Address: C-2, Below Union Bank,
Sector-12, Noida, UP-201301
....Respondent No. 04
5. Sh. Bir Pal Singh
Great Magadh Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. (Through AR)
Address: C-2, Below Union Bank,
Sector-12, Noida, UP-201301
....Respondent No. 05
6. Sh. A.P. Chouhan
Great Magadh Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. (Through AR)
Address: C-2, Below Union Bank,
Sector-12, Noida, UP-201301
....Respondent No. 06
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 440 BNSS
Date of institution : 28.01.2026
Date when judgment reserved : 29.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
a) The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) assailing the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Smt. Surbhi Sharma, Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-02, New Delhi SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:35:10 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 3 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 14716/2018 titled as "Surindera Thakur (Through SPA) vs. Great Magadh & Ors", whereby the application for revival of the complaint was dismissed.
b) The revisionist seeks to set aside the impugned order and revive the complaint proceedings that were adjourned sine die vide order dated 31.01.2023 with automatic dismissal in default after one year, which triggered on 31.01.2024.
c) This Court has heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record carefully.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
a) The revisionist filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the year 2018 against the respondents alleging dishonour of two cheques bearing numbers 088887 dated 15.06.2018 for Rs. 1,51,000/- and 088888 dated 15.07.2018 for Rs. 2,00,000/-.
b) The complaint arose out of a transaction wherein the revisionist was allegedly induced to invest Rs. 3,51,000/- in a scheme titled "Purvanchal Vatika Sec-81, Salarpur" launched by respondent No. 2, Great Magadh Infratech Pvt. Ltd., through its director respondent No. 3 (Munna Ram) and other respondents.
c) The complaint was registered as CC No. 14716/2018 before the learned Magistrate (NI Act), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:35:19 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 4 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
d) On 26.07.2022, the process server's report was received unexecuted with the remark "no such person," and the tracking report was also returned with the remark "unclaimed."
e) Vide order dated 26.07.2022, the learned Magistrate directed the revisionist/complainant to verify the addresses of the accused and granted liberty to provide fresh addresses for service of summons.
f) Despite efforts made by the complainant, no fresh address could be brought on record.
g) At this stage, the complainant requested that the matter be adjourned sine die, which request was allowed by the learned Magistrate and order dated 31.1.2023 was passed, which is reproduced as under:
"Present: Sh. Piyush Chhabra, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that complainant does not have any fresh address of the accused and on the instructions from the complainant, he prays that the matter may be adjourned sine die.
In these circumstances, since the fresh address of the accused is not available with the complainant, therefore, the matter cannot be kept pending on board only for this reason. In these circumstances, the present matter is adjourned sine die with liberty to the complainant to get it revived as and when any fresh address of accused is received. It is further clarified that in case the complainant does not appear within the period of 1 year, the matter shall automatically stand dismissed in default.
With these directions file be consigned to record room."
3. IMPUGNED ORDERS
a) In view of the aforesaid order the complaint got dismissed automatically after a year on 31.3.2024. The revisionst after the said date applied for the revival of te complaint, which was dimissed vide impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Judicial SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:35:33 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 5 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Magistrate (NI Act)-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts. The said order is reproduced below:
"Present: Ms. Sonia Kakran, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/applicant.
(through VC).
Vide this order, this Court shall dispose of the application filed by the complainant for revival of the case.
It is submitted by the counsel for applicant/complainant that she could not file the fresh address of the accused within the stipulated time period despite all his best efforts but now since she has been able to trace the fresh address of the accused the delay may accordingly be condoned and the present complaint be revived to it's original number.
Arguments heard. Records perused.
This complaint was filed in the year 2018 and the summons were returned back unserved upon the accused with the report "no such person resides here" after which the complainant was directed to verify the address of the accused/furnish fresh address of the accused, if any and file affidavit of personal verification of address of the accused.
However, since the complainant had submitted that he does not have fresh address of the accused, the matter was adjourned sine die with liberty to the complainant to get the complaint revived as and when the fresh address of the accused is found. It was further clarified vide order dated 31.01.2023 of this court that if the complainant does not appear within the period of 1 year from the date of order, the complaint shall automatically stand dismissed in default.
The present application for revival of the complaint has been filed after the expiry of said period of 1 year. As per the directions of this court the complaint has already been dismissed in default. Though, the complainant has filed the present application for revival of the present case after obtaining the fresh address of the accused, in light of the fact that the complaint has already been dismissed in default this Court does not have the power to entertain such an application since consideration of this application would amount to review of the order of this court. This is a criminal court which does not have any inherent power to review it's own order once passed. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AS Gauraya v. SN Thakur, 1986 INSC 93 (relevant extract reproduced below):
"10..... We would like to point out that this approach is wrong. What the court has to see is not whether the Code of Criminal Procedure contains any provision prohibiting a Magistrate from entertaining an application to restore a dismissed complaint, but the task should be to find out whether the said Code contains any provision enabling a SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:35:45 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 6 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Magistrate to exercise an inherent jurisdiction which he otherwise does not have. It was relying upon this decision that the Delhi High Court in this case directed the Magistrate to recall the order of dismissal of the complaint. The Delhi High Court referred to various decisions dealing with section 367 (old code) of the Criminal Procedure Code as to what should be the contents of a Judgment. In our view, the entire discussion is misplaced. So far as the accused is concerned, dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant or his discharge or acquittal on the same ground is a final order and in the absence of any specific provision in the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction."
Therefore, since the delay cannot be condoned for the reasons cited above, the application for revival of the present complaint stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant."
4. GROUNDS OF REVISION The revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 on the following grounds:
a) That the learned Magistrate failed to recognize that a parallel matter bearing case No. 31132 of 2018 titled as " Amar Pal Singh v. Great Magadh Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, South West District, Dwarka Courts, wherein the accused persons are the same and the court had been issuing summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants since 2018 and the accused finally appeared in the year 2024, demonstrating that the respondents were accessible.
b) That the learned Magistrate failed to observe that the respondents have been deliberately escaping the summons and that they succeeded in avoiding appearance in the present case by taking undue advantage of procedural technicalities.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:35:53 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 7 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
c) That the learned Magistrate failed to note that the notices and warrants were issued on the same address which is mentioned on the receipt given by the respondents to the revisionist on payments made.
d) That the learned Magistrate in an arbitrary manner imposed a condition directing the revisionist/complainant to bring on record the address of the accused within a period of one year without any justification or reasoning, which amounts to denial of principles of natural justice.
e) That the learned Magistrate failed to note that the delay in filing fresh address was not deliberate or intentional and that the revisionist made best efforts but circumstances were beyond his control.
f) That the learned Magistrate failed to note that such a condition effectively provides a window of escape to offenders who may abscond or deliberately conceal their whereabouts to frustrate the due process of law.
g) That the learned Magistrate failed to note that there is no law or precedent which ascertains a limitation for the revival of matters adjourned sine die.
h) That the order passed by the learned JMIC is completely perverse in law and liable to be set aside.
5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has perused the record including SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:01 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 8 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 and the order dated 31.01.2023. The following findings emerge:
a) Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction
i) Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) confers revisional jurisdiction upon the Sessions Court to examine the legality and propriety of orders passed by Magistrates.
ii) However, this revisional jurisdiction is not meant to be exercised as a matter of course or to correct every error of judgment. The power is to be exercised only where there is a patent illegality, material irregularity, or manifest injustice resulting from the impugned order.
b) The order dated 31.01.2023 - The Root Cause
i) The crux of the present controversy lies in the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Predecessor Court, which imposed a condition that "in case the complainant does not appear within the period of 1 year, the matter shall automatically stand dismissed in default."
ii) This Court is of the prima facie opinion that the said condition suffers from legal infirmity for the following reasons:
First, the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS) does not provide for automatic dismissal of a complaint merely on account of non-appearance of the complainant within a SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:10 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 9 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
stipulated period when the matter has been adjourned sine die.
Second, the complaint was not adjourned sine die on account of any default or negligence on the part of the complainant. Rather, it was adjourned sine die because the fresh address of the accused was not available with the complainant despite his efforts to verify the same.
Third, imposing a condition of automatic dismissal in such circumstances effectively penalizes the complainant for the evasive conduct of the accused, which is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Fourth, the phrase "sine die" literally means "without day" or indefinitely. An adjournment sine die is granted when the timeframe for the next stage of proceedings is uncertain or unknown. Imposing a specific timeline of one year with a consequence of automatic dismissal is antithetical to the very concept of sine die adjournment.
Fifth, the order dated 31.01.2023 does not record any finding of deliberate default or negligence on the part of the complainant. In fact, the order itself records that the complainant does not have any fresh address of the accused despite efforts made.
c) Could the Order Dated 31.01.2023 Have Been Challenged?
i) This Court is of the considered view that the order dated 31.01.2023 could have been, and perhaps ought to have been, SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:18 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 10 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
challenged by the revisionist immediately after it was passed, particularly the condition imposing automatic dismissal upon expiry of one year.
ii) The said order, insofar as it imposed the condition of automatic dismissal, was legally unsound and could have been successfully challenged in revision.
iii) However, it is a matter of record that the revisionist did not challenge the said order dated 31.01.2023 at the relevant time.
iv) The present revision petition has been filed only against the order dated 12.02.2025 and not against the order dated 31.01.2023.
d) Can the Impugned Order Dated 12.02.2025 Be Faulted?
i) Coming to the impugned order dated 12.02.2025, this Court has to examine: whether the learned Magistrate committed any patent illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the application for revival?
ii) The learned Magistrate, while dismissing the application for revival, has correctly observed that the complaint stood automatically dismissed in default as per the earlier order dated 31.01.2023, which had stipulated that if the complainant does not appear within the period of 1 year from the date of that order, the complaint shall automatically stand dismissed in default.
iii) The learned Magistrate has also correctly held that entertaining the application for revival would amount to reviewing her own order (i.e., the order of automatic dismissal that came into effect pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2023).
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:27 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 11 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
iv) The learned Magistrate has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AS Gauraya v. SN Thakur, (1986) 2 SCC 578, wherein it has been held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction to restore a dismissed complaint.
v) Once the complaint stood dismissed automatically on 31.01.2024 (i.e., upon expiry of one year from the order dated 31.01.2023), the same attained finality. The dismissal, though consequent upon an order that may have been legally unsound, nonetheless became a final order as it was not challenged.
vi) The learned Magistrate is not conferred with any power to revive a complaint which is dismissed either on merits or in default. Section 258 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 256 of Cr.P.C.) does not contemplate revival of a complaint once dismissed.
vii) This Court finds that the learned Magistrate has acted within the parameters of law and has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining to entertain the application for revival.
e) Parallel Proceedings - Not Relevant to Present Case
i) The revisionist has placed considerable emphasis on the fact that in a parallel case bearing CC No. 31132/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, South West District, Dwarka Courts (filed by one Amar Pal Singh Gaur against the same accused), the accused appeared in 2024 after persistent issuance of summons and warrants.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:35 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 12 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
ii) While this Court notes that the said parallel proceedings indicate that the accused were indeed accessible and were appearing in another court, this fact does not render the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 illegal or perverse.
iii) Each case proceeds on its own facts and in accordance with the orders passed by the court concerned. The fact that the Dwarka Court adopted a different approach by persistently issuing warrants does not mean that the order in the present case is vitiated.
iv) Moreover, the existence of parallel proceedings and the conduct of the accused in those proceedings could have been a ground to challenge the order dated 31.01.2023, but as noted earlier, that order has not been challenged in the present revision.
f) Remedy Available to the Revisionist
i) This Court is conscious of the fact that the revisionist/complainant has suffered financial loss and the accused appear to have evaded the legal process.
ii) However, the appropriate remedy available to the revisionist was to challenge the order dated 31.01.2023 which imposed the condition of automatic dismissal.
iii) Since the said order has not been challenged and has attained finality, this Court cannot, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 12.02.2025, indirectly set aside or nullify the effect of the order dated 31.01.2023.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:46 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 13 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
iv) The learned Magistrate in the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 was constrained to act in accordance with the earlier order dated 31.01.2023, which had become final and binding.
v) The impugned order cannot be said to be patently illegal as the learned Magistrate is not conferred with any power to revive a complaint which is dismissed either on merits or in default.
6. CONCLUSION
a) After careful consideration of the entire record and the submissions made, this Court arrives at the following conclusions:
i) The order dated 31.01.2023 insofar as it imposed a condition of automatic dismissal of the complaint upon expiry of one year was legally unsound and could have been challenged in revision. The Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS) does not provide for automatic dismissal of a complaint merely because the fresh address of the accused is not available with the complainant within a stipulated period, particularly when the matter is adjourned sine die on account of circumstances beyond the control of the complainant.
ii) However, the said order dated 31.01.2023 has not been challenged by way of the present revision petition. Consequently, the said order has attained finality and this Court cannot now go behind the same, when the same is not even challenged.
iii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be patently illegal or suffering from SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:36:59 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 14 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
any jurisdictional error. The learned Magistrate has correctly held that she is not conferred with any power to revive a complaint which stands dismissed in default, and that entertaining the application for revival would amount to reviewing her own order.
iv) In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 cannot be faulted with.
v) The revisionist, if so advised, may challenge the order dated 31.01.2023 by way of appropriate legal remedy within the period of limitation as may be prescribed or as may be condoned by competent court.
vi) This Court cannot, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 12.02.2025, revive the said complaint as the same stands dismissed pursuant to an order (dated 31.01.2023) which has not been challenged and has attained finality.
7. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court passes the following order:
a) The Criminal Revision Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
b) The impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Smt. Surbhi Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 14716/2018 is UPHELD.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 LALER 17:37:07 +0530 DLND010007382026 Page 15 of 15 Cr Rev 62/2026 Surender Thakur Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
c) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any conclusive opinion on the merits of the original complaint or on the legality of the order dated 31.01.2023, which was not the subject matter of the present revision petition.
d) The revisionist is at liberty to pursue such legal remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law, including but not limited to challenging the order dated 31.01.2023, subject to the law of limitation and subject to obtaining necessary condonation of delay, if required.
e) No costs.
f) Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and record.
g) File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP SAURABH PARTAP
SINGH LALER
30th day of January, 2026 SINGH Date: 2026.01.30
17:37:17 +0530
LALER
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts Delhi
30.01.2026