Delhi District Court
Sita Ram vs Mohd.Rahim on 1 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010128952023
CA/1/2024
SITA RAM Vs. MOHD. RAHIM
Sita Ram
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh
R/o L-1-2073, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110080
Also At:
L-Block-65, Sangam Vihar,
Mehrauli South,
New Delhi-110062 ..... Appellant
Vs.
Mohd. Rahim
S/o Mohd. Malik
R/o L-2193/A-10/2,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110080 ...... Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.01.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 08.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall decide the present petition filed against the order dated 06.12.2023 in complaint CT No. 41010/2019 titled as 'Sita Ram Vs. Mohd. Rahim Khan', whereby, Ld. MM-03, South District, Saket, dismissed the CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 1 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:31:50 +1000 complaint filed by petitioner u/s 200 Cr.P.C. for summoning of accused.
2. Vide order dated 16.03.2024, the present petition filed as an appeal was treated as revision.
3. The Ld. MM has noted the factual position as under:-
"The case of the complainant is that on 17.09.2019 when he went to Market for purchasing vegetables and fruits, one cheque and his Voter I Card fell down or misplaced in the market. On the cheque, the complainant has filled the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also signed on the said cheque. The complainant filed the complaint in respect of the misplace of cheque and voter I Card on 18.09.2019. Thereafter, the complainant received a call from Corporation Bank, Devli Branch, New Delhi regarding the said cheque, where it was mentioned that one cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was presented by the accused namely Raheem Khan, upon which the complainant told the bank officials that he was near given the above said cheque to any person and the above said cheques has been misplaced."
4. On these allegations, the complainant lodged a complaint to SHO, PS Neb Sarai, but no action was taken. Hence, the complainant moved a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM. Complainant vide order dated 24.05.2022 gave his statement that he does not wish to pursue his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, the said application was dismissed as CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 2 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:32:04 +1000 not pressed. After that, PSE was recorded which was closed on 13.01.2023.
5. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments on summoning, the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.12.2023, with following relevant observations:-
3. However, in the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant, the complainant has made U-Turn upon his story in the complaint wherein in his examination dated 24.05.2023, he has stated that on 17.09.2019, there was an agreement was made between him and Mr. Mohd. Raheem. Khan for Rs. 3 Lakhs and on that day, he kept cheque, Voter IO and agreement copy in L Folder at the house and on that day alongwith him Raheem and Mangain Paswan also visited Budh Bazar, Sangam Vihar. There, he was called by Anil Kumar Sharma to be given the cheque for Rs. 2 Lakhs. When he reached at Budh Bazar Sangam Vihar, he delivered L Folder to Md. Raheem and he went to urinate. It has thereafter been stated by the complainant that he came back, he found that the cheque and Voter ID were not in the said folder.
4. CW-2 and CW-3 who are the witnesses of the complainant have also deposed similarly. However, there is no allegation of any of the witnesses of the complainant having seen the proposed accused herein, taking the cheque from the complainant or from his bag as per the averments made in the complainant and in the evidence led.
5. There is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
6. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed under Section 203 Cr. PC. Nothing more remains to be CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 3 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:32:17 +1000 done in the present matter. File be consigned to Record Room."
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2023, revisionist has preferred this revision petition.
7. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties. Perused the record.
8. Ld. counsel appearing for the revisionist argued that the Ld. Trial court overlooked all the facts raised by petitioner through the written submission filed by him. He argued that there are contradictions in the statement given by the respondent in ATR and the complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. Hence, the impugned order is not legal and liable to be set- aside.
9. Per contra, Ld. counsel appearing for respondent refuted the said contentions by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness.
10.Petitioner has alleged that the respondent has committed the offence of cheating. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating.
11.Essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are:- (I) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 4 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:32:31 +1000
12. Fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
13. Evidence of complainant, who deposed as CW-1 and other witnesses Mangain Paswan (CW-2) and Anil Kumar Sharma (CW-3) failed to justify that the respondent made any false misrepresentation to the complainant with a view to induce him. Though the revisionists has alleged that the respondent has committed the offence of cheating but he has not indicated in the complaint filed by him to the police or in his testimony recorded during pre summoning evidence that how this offence is made out against the respondent. Complainant has only alleged that on 17.09.2019, he went to L Block Bush Bazaar for purchasing vegetables and fruits where his Cheque and ID card fell down and misplaced. In the present case it is nowhere been stated that there was intent on behalf of respondent to cheat the revisionist which is a condition precedent for an offence u/s 420 IPC.
14. On considering the rival contentions, I find that there is no such evidence giving strong suspicion for commission of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC against the respondent.
CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 5 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:32:41 +1000
15. Even the contention of Ld. Counsel that cheque was stolen by respondent from the bag of petitioner, which he had handed over to him, does not find any support from the testimony of witnesses. Also, in the complainant dated 18.09.2019 and 22.11.2019, it is nowhere mentioned that cheque was stolen by respondent.
16. In the matter 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."
17. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 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 CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 6 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:32:53 +1000 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 judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
18.Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, this court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to substitute its own view with that of court below unless the order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error or patent infirmity/illegality. In the instant case, as evident from record, Ld. Magistrate while narrating (in detail) the facts, passed a well reasoned detailed order, thereby dismissing the complaint of revisionist under section 203 CrPC finding no sufficient ground for proceedings against the respondents and therefore, this court cannot and rather ought not substitute its own view with that of Ld. Magistrate (while exercising its revisional jurisdiction) and thereby arriving at a different conclusion. This court is of the view that the Ld. MM has provided clear and cogent reasons for not summoning the respondent and it is clearly not for this Court to second guess the decision.
CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 7 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.01 16:33:05 +1000
19. Further, summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128, wherein it was observed:-
"Summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused".
20. I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint u/s 203 CrPC, denoting absence of prima facie ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 420 IPC. 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 present petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
21.In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off. CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 8 of 9 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.01 16:33:15 +1000
22. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
23. The case file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.01 16:33:32 +1000 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 01st DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 9 signed pages) CA/1/2024 SITA RAM Vs. MOHD.RAHIM Page No. 9 of 9