Delhi District Court
Chander Kala Bishnoi Through Attorney ... vs Rajesh Kumar And Ors on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
Cr Rev / 237/2024
Chander Kala Bishnoi
(Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal)
Vs.
Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
DLST010056122024
SMT. CHANDER KALA BISHNOI,
AGED 80 YEARS
W/O LATE KRISHAN KUMAR
(Through her attorney holder Ajay Pal Bishnoi @Ajay Pal
S/o Late Krishan Kumar)
BOTH RESIDENTS OF:
VILLAGE SUKHCHAIN, TEHSIL ABOHAR, DISTT
FAIZALKA, PUNJAB -152116 ..REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. MR. RAJESH KUMAR,
S/O MR. SHIV PAL SINGH,
R/O W-17/21, BLOCK N, SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:
PART OF HOUSE NO. 52 (OLD NO. 552), LANE NUMBER
W23, SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI
2. Ms. SUMAN KUMARI,
W/o Mr. PARDESHI LAL, R/o W-23/522-B, SAINIK FARM,
NEW DELHI.
Cr Rev / 237/2024
Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 1 of 13
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
17:38:47
+0530
ALSO AT:
VILLAGE SALARPUR, DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDH
NAGAR, NOIDA, U.P.
3. MR. PARDESHI LAL
S/O MR. AGHARI,
R/o W-23/522-B, SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT: VILLAGE SALARPUR, DISTRICT GAUTAM
BUDH NAGAR, NOIDA, U.P
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.06.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 13.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall decide the criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, filed against the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 in CT Cases No. 801/2022, titled as 'CHANDER KALA BISHNOI (SENIOR CITIZEN) Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS', PS Neb Sarai, whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. The Ld. MM has noted the factual position as under:-
"Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that she is a senior citizen and a farmer and resides at her native place situated in Village Sukhchain Tehsil Abohar, Distt. Fazilka, Punjab. It is alleged that the complainant is the absolute owner of a built up property bearing House number 52, Lane Number W-23, situated at Sainik Farms, within the jurisdiction of PS Neb Sarai. It is alleged that the property was originally owned by her late husband who purchased the same from Mr. Chander vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1990. It is alleged that the late husband of the complainant Cr Rev / 237/2024 Digitally signed by Purshotam Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.Purshotam Pathak Page No. 2 of 13 Pathak Date:
2026.03.07 17:38:51 +0530 sold the same to her through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1990. It is alleged that proposed accused no. 3/ Pardeshi was employed as a domestic help by the complainant and her husband on 05.07.2014 and was allowed to reside in the servant quarter so long as he is employed with the complainant/her husband. Husband of the complainant passed away on 26.06.2018. It is alleged that upon the demise of her husband, the services of proposed accused no. 3/ Pardeshi were terminated. However proposed accused no. 3/ Pardeshi refused to vacate the servant quarters and also started running a shop there without the permission of the complainant.
Further, on 16.12.2018, when the son of the complainant brought two domestic workers from Punjab, proposed accused no. 3/ Pardeshi created ruckus and allegedly lodged false complaints against the son of the complainant for snatching possession of the storeroom and also threatened them that he will lodge more false complaints. It is alleged that proposed accused no. 3/ Pardhesi also allegedly vacated the premises in March 2020 when the whole nation went into complete lockdown. It is further alleged that sometime in October 2020, complainant's agents told that some Rakesh Yadav/ proposed accused no. 1 has illegally trespassed and occupied part of servant quarters and threatened them that he will file false cases against them. A police complaint regarding the incident was lodged on 13.10.2020. Complainant was later informed that the property in question was purchased by proposed accused no. 1 from proposed accused no. 2/ Suman Kumari w/o Pardeshi/ proposed accused no. 3 based on GPA dated 23.12.2019 registered at Noida. They were also informed that the husband of the complainant executed a will dated 09.03.2010 in favor of Suman qua 350 sq yards of the property in question consisting of 2 rooms set. Complainant has alleged that husband of the complainant was not competent to will portion of the property in question to proposed accused no. 2 as the complainant is the sole owner of the property and has mutation in her name as well. It is further submitted that a suit for declaration and recovery of possession against proposed accused no. 1 is also pending in the Court of Ld. ADJ-04 South District, Saket Courts and court vide order dated 27.04.2022 has restrained proposed accused no.1 from alienating, selling or disposing of the suit property in his occupation. It has further been alleged that the will in question is forged and fabricated. It is prayed that the present application be allowed for proper police investigation in the present matter."
3. The complainant lodged complaints dated 27.12.2018, 1207.2019, 13.10.2020 and 10.11.2020 to SHO PS- Neb Sarai, New Delhi and to the DCP, South Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 3 of 13
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
17:38:54
+0530
District on 09.03.2021 along with the complaint for directions to the concerned SHO, PS Neb Sarai Police station to register an FIR and investigate the matter, but no action was taken. Hence, the revisionist moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Trial Court.
4. Ld. MM called for action taken report, which was filed by the investigation officer. Thereafter, arguments were heard on the application and the Ld. MM dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) vide order dated 08.04.2024.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.04.2024, revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
i. that the Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the revisionist is the actual owner of the property and an investigation was needed to ascertain as to who forged the signature of the husband of the revisionist on Will dated 09.03.2010.
ii. that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the accused person in collusion with the local police did not deliberately trace the notary public and gave false ATR before the court stating he is untraceable.
iii. that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
Purshotam
Cr Rev / 237/2024 Pathak
Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Page No. 4 of 13 Date: 2026.03.07 17:38:58 +0530 that the Will dated 09.03.2010 is an antedated document as the services of the accused Pardeshi were only available from July 2014.
iv. that the Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the custodial interrogation of respondent is required to ascertain the forgery of the signatures of the husband of the revisionist on the will dated
09.03.2010.
v. that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist / complainant is in possession of the original chain of documents and the police did not take any steps to get the signatures verified from the FSL.
vi. that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the filing of the civil suit was for the protection of the property and the accused cannot escape the liability of the criminal offence.
vii. that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the involvement of the respondents/ accused persons in forging the Will of senior citizen living outstation and creating a false GPA which is registered at NOIDA, UP, which is nowhere near the property.
viii. that the Ld. Trial court gravely erred in not appreciating that the police never verified the Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 5 of 13 Digitally signed
by Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Date:
Pathak 2026.03.07
17:39:00
+0530
whereabouts and questioned the accused Suman Kumari and her husband Pardeshi who forged the will in question.
ix. that the Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in not appreciating that the mere fact that the Revisionist has the documents to establish her case does not mean that police intervention is not needed to unearth the conspiracy of forgery.
x. that the Ld. trial court gravely erred in not appreciating that petitioner had prima facie established the commission of cognizable offence against the respondents under Section 441/442/443/444/445/446/447/451/452/463/467/478 /471/474/506/120B IPC and custodial interrogation of the accused persons is required.
xi. that the Ld. trial court gravely erred in not appreciating that dismissal of application u/s 156(3) CrpC and non-registration to FIR will amount to a miscarriage of justice and permitting the accused persons to continue to enjoy the fruits of the forgery/cheating committed by them.
xii. that the Ld. trial court gravely erred and passed the impugned order based upon a wrong appreciation of facts and completely ignored that for directions for registration of FIR only prima facie Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date: 2026.03.07 17:39:03 +0530 view is required. xiii. that the Ld. trial court gravely erred in not
appreciating the law in its correct perspective as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside
6. I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels for revisionist as well as respondents. I have also gone through the reply filed by resondents and perused the record.
7. Ld. counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds has argued that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without application of judicial mind. He submitted that the Ld. MM has failed to consider the materials available before court and has passed an order only on the basis of ATR filed by police, which is not in accordance with the facts pleaded. He has forcefully argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Ld. MM was duty bound to order for registration of FIR in terms of judgement in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 as the facts averred in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is urged that respondents have filed the documents and to ascertain the forgery assistance of police would be required. It is further urged that the impugned order is liable to be set- aside and the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 7 of 13
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
17:39:05
+0530
deserves to be allowed by passing appropriate directions for registration of the FIR in the instant case.
8. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the respondents has contended that the Ld. MM has passed a reasoned order after due application of judicial mind. He contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that there is no need for any police investigation.
9. It is a settled law that a direction for registration of FIR cannot be issued mechanically, without applying judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors"decided on 19 March, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012 held as under:-
"29. At this stage, it is seemly to state that power U/s 156 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 Court. 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 fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same".
11. Therefore, an excersice for issuance of directions for registration of FIR is not an empty formality. It is serious excercise of judicial discretion. It must be excercised after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice. Such direction cannot be issued in a casual and mechanical manner.
Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Purshotam Page No. 8 of 13 Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.03.07 17:39:08 +0530
12. Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, warranting complex and scientific investigation for the collection of evidence.
13. In the case of Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that:-
"Magistrates should act under Section 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusation".
14. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi) that :-
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s156. But cases, where Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 9 of 13
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
17:39:10
+0530
such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such, declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified''.
15. Adverting to the facts of present case, it is not disputed that both the parties are having civil disputes between them and the respondents have been restrained from alienating the disputed property. The will which the complainant/ revisionist claim to have been forged by the respondent is also under challenge before the civil court. The revisionist in her revision has stated that police investigation is required to ascertain the forgery of Will by the respondents, for this the Ld. MM has already observed that police resort can be taken u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
16. After going through the order of Ld. Trial Court and complaint, I find that the learned trial court had rightly observed that the complainant has already sought declaration of Will and GPA executed by her husband as null and void and police investigation is not required as she is already in possession of necessary documents to establish her case. Making such an observation and passing such an order was completely within the jurisdiction and power of Ld. MM. Further, all the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant including identity of accused persons and documentary evidence, as well as the names and addresses of the concerned witnesses.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Cr Rev / 237/2024 Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. 17:39:14
+0530
Page No. 10 of 13
17. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this court, while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"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."
18. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein it has been observed 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. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC 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 Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 11 of 13
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
17:39:16
+0530
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
19. If the revisionists want to establish her case certainly she can examine herself and if there is any necessity to summon any record or other witness she can apply to the Ld. Trial Court for the same.
20. Even otherwise, the Ld. trial Court was very cautious and judicious because while disposing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, it allowed the revisionists to proceed with complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and has clarified that complainants option of police investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C are kept open.
21. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has relied upon the judgment of Lalita Kumari vs State of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1, to contend that FIR is mandatory if cognizable offence is found. I am however, of the view that the said judgment was primarily about the duty of police U/s 154 (3) Cr.P.C to be mandatory but the power given to Magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C is discretionary in nature.
22. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set aside, Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the revisionists is dismissed.
23. The revision petition is disposed off.
Cr Rev / 237/2024 Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
Page No. 12 of 13
17:39:19
+0530
24. TCR along with copy of this judgment be sent back to Ld. Trial Court.
25. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.03.07
17:39:22
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
th
07 DAY OF MARCH, 2026 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 13 signed pages) Cr Rev / 237/2024 Chander Kala Bishnoi (Through Attorney Holder Sh Ajay Pal Bishnoi Alias Ajay Pal) Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Page No. 13 of 13