Delhi District Court
Pragya Agarwal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-000266-2024
Criminal Revision No. 10/2024
Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors.
IN THE MATTER OF :
SMT. PRAGYA AGARWAL
W/O SH. ATUL AGARWAL
R/O H. NO. 98, MUNICIPAL NO. 4911
DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002
....Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH SHO
PS: SABZI MANDI, DELHI
2. SH. DEEPAK GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. D. P. GUPTA
R/OH. NO. B-15, SECTOR-33
NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH
3. SH. PRADEEP GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. D. P. GUPTA
R/O H. NO. B-15, SECTOR-33
NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH
4. DR. DINESH SINGHAL
CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.1 of 12
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11
16:52:39
+0530
S/O SH. G. P. SINGHAL
R/O H. NO. 98, MUNICIPAL NO. 4911,
DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002.
5. SMT. SEEMA SINGHAL
W/O DR. DINESH SINGHAL
R/O H. NO. 98, MUNICIPAL NO. 4911
DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002
....Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.01.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11.05.2026
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 399 Cr.PC moved on behalf of revisionist against the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Sh. Chatinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 08/2020 titled as "Pragya Aggarwal v. State & Ors." whereby complaint case of revisionist was dismissed as not maintainable while considering it as an application under Section 340 Cr.PC.
1. It is averred that revisionist is constrained to file the present criminal revision for assailing order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Ld. MM whereby complaint of revisionist was wrongly dismissed by Ld. MM.
2. It is further averred that present complaint case was filed regarding forging and fabrication of documents by respondents and using the name as genuine in judicial proceedings. It is further averred CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.2 of 12 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11 16:52:43 +0530 that revisionist has filed complaint case under Section 190 Cr.P.C and also mentioned Section 340 Cr.P.C in the complaint before the Ld. MM. It is further submitted that complaint of revisionist was registered as Court Complaint instead of Complaint Case.
3. It is further averred that impugned order clearly shows that Ld. MM is completely oblivious that the law invoked by the revisionist in the Court Complaint was limited to complaining of the commission of offence as provided under Section 190 of the Code i.e. codified under Section 340 Cr.P.C and that the present case does not fall for consideration under Section 195 of the Code as the forged and fabricated documents were not custodia legis.
4. It is further averred that contrary to the pleadings/averments/submissions of the revisionist, the impugned order is based on Section 340 read with Section 195 of the code instead of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the code.
5. It is further averred that impugned order has not been passed on the merits of the case and Ld. MM has erroneously relied on Section 36 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reading the same with Section 195(2)(i), 195(3) and 340 of the code trying to give an impression that Ld. ARC is the Civil Court having jurisdiction to entertain application Section 340 of the code.
6. It is further averred that revisionist has filed the complaint against respondents for using forged and fabricated documents as genuine in the Court. It is further averred that Ld. MM has committed grave error in contravention of legal procedure as after summoning the accused, he dismissed the complaint without trial.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.3 of 12 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.11 16:52:47 +0530
7. It is averred by the revisionist that Nirmala Devi (already expired) was inducted as tenant in the property at house no. 98, Municipal No. 4911, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter suit property) by Sh. Jagdish Rai Seengal in the year 1973-74 in the portion of property which was under his ownership, later on in the year the suit property was purchased by Nirmala Devi (already expired) vide agreement to sell dated 30.12.1982. It is further averred by the revisionist that on 12.06.2017, out of love and affection, Nirmala Devi (already expired) transferred the suit property to Prabha Aggarwal (already expired) and revisionist, vide registered gift deed. It is further alleged by the revisionist that respondents have filed a false case of eviction with mala fide intentions before the Court of learned CCJ-cum-ARC Central District, Tis Hazari on the basis of forged documents i.e Batware ka Smaran Patr, Will dated 21.09.1984 and Will dated 14.12.1987.
8. It is further averred that the impunged order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Ld. MM, TIs Hazari Courts, Delhi, is liable to be set aside and Court of Ld. MM be directed to lodge prosecution of complaint filed by the revisionist on following grounds:
Grounds of Revision a. It is averred that the impugned order is illegal and based upon surmises and conjectures and there is no merit in the impugned order passed by the Ld.MM.
b. It is averred that Ld. MM failed to appreciate that he has already taken cognizance of complaint by issuing summons to accused vide order dated 27.06.2022.
c. It is further averred that Ld. MM passed the impugned order by CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.4 of 12 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.11 16:52:51 +0530 misreading the settled law as reflected in judgment titled as Iqbal Singh Marwa Vs. Meenakshi Marwa (2005) 4 SCC 370.
d. It is further averred that Ld. MM committed grave error by dismissing the complaint without trial irrespective of the fact that there are serious allegations of forging and fabricating documents qua suit property.
e. It is further averred that revisionist herein has filed a complaint case alleging commission of serious offences, however, Ld. MM has erroneously considered the same as an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C and dismissed the same in contravention of settled law.
f. It is averred that the revisionist has not filed any similar criminal revision before any other Court seeking similar relief.
g. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Ld. MM, TIs Hazari Courts, Delhi be set aside and Court of Ld. MM be directed to lodge prosecution of complaint and revision petition be allowed.
9. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has relied upon following judgment/citations:-
(a) Saraswati Chatterjee Vs. State; 129 (2006) DLT 204
(b) C.L. Manchanda Vs. State and Anr; 2008 CriLJ 1660
(c) Arun Dhawan Vs. Lokesh Dhawan; 2015 CriLJ 2126
(d) Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors Vs. Veeran Narang; Criminal Appeal No. 2225 of 2011.
10. In reply filed on behalf of respondents, they vehemently opposed the present revision petition and submitted that CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.5 of 12 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.11 16:52:55 +0530 impugned order was rightly passed by the Trial court after considering facts and circumstances of the case and material on record. It is further averred that impugned order has been passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C and accordingly, present revision petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternate remedy under Section 341 Cr.P.C.
11. It is further averred that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present revision petition or even the complaint case from which present revision petition has arisen as eviction proceedings referred in the complaint filed by the petitioner were instituted by respondent No.2 against one Nirmala Devi only and petitioner was not party to said eviction petition.
12. It is further submitted that scope of interference in revision petition is narrow and limited only for the purpose of considering 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 further averred that the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the facts of the case. It is prayed that the revision petition filed by the revisionist be dismissed with cost.
13. In replication filed on behalf of revisionist, she vehemently denied all the contentions of respondents and submitted that revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 initially before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, without passing any observations, in order dated 30.11.2023, the Hon'ble High Court granted liberty to the revisionist to approach this Court for the relief prayed herein. It is CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.6 of 12 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:00 +0530 further submitted that para 1 of the criminal complaint clearly states that it is a criminal complaint filed under Section 190 of Cr.P.C of 1973 and therefore, Ld. MM could not have dismissed the complaint of the revisionist basing the order on Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that revisionist is not seeking any substantive or merit based relief by way of present criminal revision but her relief is limited to the restoration of her criminal complaint so that the same can be adjudicated in accordance with established legal procedure. It is further averred that Trial Court had full knowledge of the fact that it is a criminal complaint and that is why, the Trial Court has issued summons to the proposed accused vide order dated 27.06.2022. Accordingly, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and criminal complaint of petitioner be restored to its original number to be proceeded further in accordance with law.
14. I have heard the arguments and perused the record and relied upon citations carefully.
15. Revisionist has filed the present revision petition against impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Ld. Trial court, whereby his Complaint Case was dismissed by the Trial Court as application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
16. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the revisionist that Ld. Trial Court failed to follow the correct legal procedure with respect to criminal complaint case and decided the same without conducting trial as per law. It is further submitted that both the parties appeared before the Court on 20.07.2022. However, CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.7 of 12 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:03 +0530 instead of proceeding with the trial of the case and allowing the parties to lead their evidences, the Trial Court simply dismissed the complaint without trial. It is further submitted that Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and circumstances of the case in hand and passed the impugned order illegally in violation of settled law.
17. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to go through the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Ld. Trial court which is reproduced as under:-
"CNR No. DLCT02-003822-2020 CC No. 08/2020 Pragya Aggarwal v. State & Ors.
PS : Daryaganj 22.05.2023 Present: Sh. Atul Aggarwal for complainant.
Heard on the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C.
1. Vide this order I shall decide the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C to register a case under criminal proceedings against the respondents.
2. In the application it is averred by the complainant that complainant no. 1 (already expired) was inducted as tenant in the property at house no. 98, Municipal No. 4911, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter suit property) by Sh. Jagdish Rai Seengal in the year 1973-74 in the portion of property which was under his ownership, later on in the year the suit property was purchased by complainant no. 1 (already expired) vide agreement to sell dated 30.12.1982. It is further averred by the complainant that on 12.06.2017, out of love and affection, complainant no.1 (already expired) transferred the suit property to complainant no. 2 (already expired) and complainant no. 3, vide registered gift deed. It is further alleged by the complainant that respondent no. 2 to 6 have filed a false case of eviction with mala fide intentions before the Court of learned CCJ-cum-ARC CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.8 of 12 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:07 +0530 Central District, Tis Hazari on the basis of forged documents i.e Batware ka Smaran Patr, Will dated 21.09.1984 and Will dated 14.12.1987. The complainant is praying for registration of initiation of criminal proceedings against respondent no. 2 to 6.
3. I have heard the ld. counsel for the applicant Sh. Atul Aggarwal. I have also perused the record.
4. Before delving into the allegations of the alleged forgery it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions and their purpose.
5. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is there with the main purpose to ensure effective administration of justice through the procedural code that should be taken on by both the executive and the judiciary in order to dispose of criminal cases. Sections 340 deals with ensuring the fulfilment of this purpose of the Code by providing the procedure that needs to be abided by while dealing with a list of offences that are hindrances to appropriate administration of justice. The list of offences is discussed under Section 195 of the code.
6. Section 195 CrPC provides the mandatory prerequisites before the Court can take cognizance of the offences specified therein. The procedure to be followed in such cases, where the Court desires to initiate prosecution in respect of the offence(s) committed during, or in relation to, a proceeding before itself, is provided under Section 340 CrPC. This section lays down the procedure to be followed in relation to offences under Section 195 (1) (b). Sub-section 1 (a) of Section 195 requires that when an offence is committed in relation to a public servant, prior sanction for his prosecution will be necessary whereas sub-section 1 (b) provides that when an offence is in relation to a Court, the sanction of the Court should be obtained first to proceed against the offender.
7. The object of Section 340 CrPC is to ascertain whether any offence affecting the administration of justice has been committed in relation to any proceedings before or any document produced/ given in evidence in Court and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action.
8. It is clear from the above provisions of the Code of CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.9 of 12 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:14 +0530 Criminal Procedure that when it is complained that fraud was played on the Court purportedly on the strength of documents, which were either forged, fabricated or created for the purpose of judicial proceedings, then the Court can cause necessary preliminary enquiry in to such complaint. This is the pith and substance of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Such investigation shall be caused in the interest of justice and to uphold the majesty of law. If on enquiry, as contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. the Court is satisfied that the offences mentioned in Section 195 are committed in relation to a proceeding in the Court, more particularly by producing forged or fabricated document during the course of evidence, then the conclusion of such preliminary enquiry shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be sent to the competent Magistrate Court to initiate Criminal prosecution against the persons who have indulged in such offences.
9. It is needless to mention that if the Court records a finding after subjective satisfaction that the offences enumerated under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are made out in the complaint submitted before it, recourse shall be made to forward a report to the Magistrate to initiate Criminal Prosecution. On the other hand, if the Court has not satisfied itself as to the existence of a prima facie case to proceed further, it shall record reasons for not forwarding the complaint as contemplated under Section 340 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court on harmonious construction of provisions of Section 2(i) 195 Cr.P.C, Section 340 Cr.P.C and Section 36 of Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 and inclusive definition of Court U/s 195(3) of Cr.P.C forum of ARC is a "civil court" to entertain and try/inquire the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is on that account that the learned ARC had the jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which, it is submitted, pertains to offences which had been committed in relation to the proceedings pending before the said forum within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, Section 340 confers an inherent power on a court to make a complaint in respect of offence committed in or in relation to the proceeding in that court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court, if that court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.10 of 12 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:18 +0530 section (1) of Section 195 and authorise such court to hold preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after recording a finding to that effect as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 340.
11. Accordingly, the present application under Section 340 Cr.P.C is dismissed as not maintainable.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 22.05.2023
-sd-
(Chatinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate-07 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi."
18. Perusal of the TCR reveals that vide order dated 22.05.2023, criminal complaint of revisionist filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court as application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that by way of present revision petition, revisionist/complainant is not seeking any substantive/meritorious relief but is only seeking restoration of his criminal complaint by setting aside impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court so that it can be proceeded further in accordance with established legal procedure and full fledged trial can be conducted in her case. The revisionist has categorically submitted that she never filed any case under Section 340 Cr.P.C but the same was filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. In view of aforesaid categorical submissions and considering that it was a criminal complaint which was filed by the revisionist herein, the Trial Court has committed a grave error by dismissing the complaint of the revisionist basing the order on application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.11 of 12 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:22 +0530 to note that though complainant/petitioner has mentioned Section 340 also on his criminal complaint along with the heading i.e. criminal complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for the offences committed by the accused persons under Sections191/192/193/196/199/200/209/463/464/465/467/468/471 /474/475/476/120B/34 IPC, it is settled law that merely wrong mentioning of the provisions and/or omitting mentioning of the provisions does not make a complaint not maintainable and does not confer a right to treat the criminal complaint as application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
19. Therefore, in the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that Trial Court has committed a grave error while passing the impugned order, revision petition is hereby allowed, and impugned order dated 22.05.2023 is set aside and Trial Court is directed to restore the criminal complaint to its original number and proceed further in accordance with law.
20. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the merits of the case. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of the order.
21. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
22. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the revisionist.Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.11 16:53:26 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain) on 11th day of May, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No.10/2024 Pragya Agarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No.12 of 12