Delhi District Court
Transaction Solutions International ... vs Raj Bala Sharma And Anr on 22 August, 2025
DLND010097402024 Page 1 of 12
Cr Rev / 663/2024
TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD
Vs.
RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.663/24
In the matter of :-
Transaction Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd.,
through AR Mr. Mukesh Kumar
S/o. Sh. Parmanand Sharma
R/o. 316, DLF Prime Towers,
Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi
.....Revisionist
(represented by Sh. Tushar Kanth, Advocate)
Versus
1. Raj Bala Sharma
W/o. Sh. Mange Ram Sharma
R/o. H.No.07, Basant Nagar,
Chatter Singh Market,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057
.....Respondent No.1
2. Lalit Sharma
S/o.H.No.07, Basant Nagar,
Chatter Singh Market,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057
.....Respondent No.2
(Represented Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocate)
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 06.12.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 06.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.08.2025
JUDGMENT:-
1. INTRODUCTION
(i) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 440 read with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), DLND010097402024 Page 2 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
(Section 399 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking to set aside the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Learned JMFC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 9405/2019. By the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionist under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 447 (criminal trespass), 420 (cheating), 379 (theft), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
(ii) The revisionist contends that the dismissal was erroneous, passed without due application of mind to the facts, evidence, and applicable law, and has caused grave prejudice. Notice was issued to the respondents, and arguments were heard from both sides. For the reasons detailed hereinafter, the revision petition is allowed.
2. Brief Facts/Allegations in the Complaint Filed by the Revisionist Before the Trial Court
(i) The revisionist/complainant, Transaction Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at 316, DLF Prime Towers, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. It specializes in providing solutions for electronic payments, surveillance, and managed services to banks across approximately 20 states in India.
(ii) In 2014, the complainant was seeking space for installing an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) of Punjab National Bank (PNB) in the Vasant Vihar area. The respondents approached the complainant, representing that they owned suitable premises at House No. 79, Basant Nagar, DLND010097402024 Page 3 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
Chatter Singh Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. Accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 25.02.2014, effective from 25.03.2014, for a period of nine years, under which the complainant installed and operated the ATM.
(iii) Subsequently, the complainant decided to vacate the premises in accordance with the lease terms and informed the respondents. Despite clearing all dues and being ready to settle any arrears, the respondents refused to permit vacation. Instead, they locked the premises, welded the shutter, and denied access to the complainant's representatives and PNB officials. This action trapped public money (cash) inside the ATM and prevented maintenance or removal of equipment. The complainant alleges that this constituted wrongful restraint, criminal trespass, and possible theft of the cash, as the respondents' behavior raised suspicions of dishonest intent. A legal notice dated 08.03.2019 was served on Respondent No. 1, demanding access, but it elicited no response. Complaints were also lodged with the Station House Officer (SHO), Vasant Vihar, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South- West District, but no action ensued, prompting the filing of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR.
(iv) The complainant asserts that the respondents' actions amount to malafide acts, criminal breach of trust (by misappropriating entrusted property), house trespass (by unlawfully entering and locking the premises), cheating (by inducing the lease with dishonest intentions), theft (of equipment and potentially cash), and criminal intimidation (through threats of dire consequences).
DLND010097402024 Page 4 of 12Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
3. Evidence Led by the Revisionist Before the Trial Court
(i) The Ld. Trial Court proceeded with pre-summoning evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. after dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 02.04.2022. The following evidence was led:
1. CW-1 (Mukesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the Complainant): Examined on 17.11.2022, he reiterated the lease execution, attempts to vacate, and the respondents' refusal leading to locking of the premises. He highlighted the trapped cash and suspicion of theft. Documents exhibited by CW1:
1. Legal notice dated 07.03.2019/08.03.2019 (Ex. CW1/A).
2. Complaint dated 18.05.2019 to SHO, Vasant Vihar (Ex. CW1/B).
3. Complaint dated 17.06.2019 to DCP, South-West (Ex. CW1/C).
4. Lease deed dated 25.02.2014 (Mark A).
5. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Ex. CW1/1).
2. CW-2 (Dhanesh Kumar, Employee of the Complainant): Examined on 06.03.2023, he corroborated CW-1's testimony, stating that he personally attempted access but was threatened by the respondents.
(ii)Pre-summoning evidence was closed thereafter. Additionally, a status report from the police (dated 27.01.2020) noted that Respondent No. 1 admitted to locking the premises due to alleged non-payment of rent, though the complainant disputed any arrears.
4. Impugned Order
(i) The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 9405/2019, is reproduced verbatim below for ready reference:
"ORDER
1.The brief facts of the present case are that: -DLND010097402024 Page 5 of 12
Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
(i) It has been stated on behalf of the complainant company through the present complaint and the pre-summoning evidence that the respondents namely, Raj Bala Sharma and Lalit Sharma committed fraud upon the company in view of the allegations levelled. It has been alleged that the complainant company was looking for space for installation of ATM of Punjab National Bank in Vasant Vihar area in the year 2014. The respondents approached the complainant company and informed that they had such a space available and they executed lease deed dated 25.02.2014. Dispute arose between the parties when the complainant company informed the respondents regarding closure of ATM at their premises as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. After having cleared the dues, the representatives on behalf of the complainant company visited the premises of the respondents (where ATM machine had been installed) for removing the machine/equipment, however, the respondents did not allow them to do so and rather closed and locked the premises.
(ii) The cash is blocked in the said ATM machine and every time the representatives of the complainant company tried to enter the premises, the respondents abused and threatened with dire consequences. The complainant company got issued a legal notice dated 07.03.2019 to the respondents and the same was duly served upon them on 09.03.2019. The respondents did not reply to the said notice nor did they allow the complainant company to vacate the premises in question.
(iii) Therefore, it has been alleged by the complainant company that the respondents committed offence of criminal breach of trust, house trespass, cheating and theft.
2. In the pre-summoning evidence, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, authorized representative for the complainant company got himself examined as CW-1. Another employee namely, Sh. Dhanesh Kumar, for the complainant company was examined as CW-2. No further witnesses were examined by the complainant company and accordingly, pre-summoning evidence was closed. The complainant/CW-1 has relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Copy of legal notice, Ex. CW1/A.
(ii) Copy of complaint dated 18.05.2019 made to the SHO concerned, Ex. CW1/B.
(iii) Copy of complaint made to DCP concerned Ex. CW1/C.
(iv) Copy of lease deed dated 25.02.2014, Mark A.
(v) Copy of complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.PC, Ex. CW1/1.
3. Arguments on point of summoning have been heard and the entire record, including the documents relied upon by the complainant company have been perused.
4. The present complaint case deserves to be dismissed for the following grounds:-
DLND010097402024 Page 6 of 12Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
(i) Firstly, the present complaint is totally silent on the point as to when the complainant company had informed the respondents regarding closure of ATM at their premises and termination of lease. No such date has been disclosed in the complaint or in the pre-summoning evidence. Further, the lease deed 25.02.2014 Mark A, which took effect from 25.03.2014, was effective and to remain in force for a period of 9 years, whereas no reason, whatsoever, has been stated in the present complaint as to why the lease had been terminated.
(ii) Furthermore, no manner of communication has been stated whereby the aforesaid information regardin termination of lease had been conveyed to the other party.
(iii) The evasiveness of the allegations levelled also gets reflected from the fact that the present complaint is also silent on the point as to what the dues were at the time when communication regarding termination of lease had been conveyed and as to how the same were paid?
(iv) It has been alleged by the complainant company that the respondents had restricted the representatives of the complainant company from entering the premises concerned. No such date has either been stated in the entire complaint or the pre-summoning evidence. Hence, the date(s), on which the alleged offence had been committed has itself not been stated.
(v) Lastly, nothing has been specified as to what threats had allegedly been extended to the representatives of the complainant company by the respondents.
5. In the afore-discussed manner, the present complaint is coated with a strong hint of suspicion and resultantly, the same does not inspire confidence of this court. Hence, the complainant has not been able to establish prima facic case against the respondents and substantiate the allegations against them. Accordingly, no ground is made out to summon the respondents in the present matter. Thus, with the aforesaid observation, the present complaint stands dismissed and disposed of."
5. Grounds of Revision
(i) The revisionist has raised the following grounds challenging the impugned order:
A. The order was passed without application of mind, failing to appreciate the facts, evidence (including the police status report where the respondent admitted to locking the premises), and applicable law.
B. The respondents admitted in the status report to locking the premises without permission during the subsistence of tenancy, DLND010097402024 Page 7 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
constituting wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC) and criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC).
C. Even assuming non-payment of rent (which is disputed), the respondents could not lawfully lock the premises or seize the complainant's property; such actions are impermissible and outside legal recourse.
D. The locking occurred before the lease expiry, illegally restraining access and taking custody of the ATM and equipment, prima facie constituting theft (Section 379 IPC). E. The ATM contained cash, and the respondents' refusal raises suspicions of misappropriation, warranting action against them.
6. Arguments
(i) During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist reiterated the avements made in the revision petition.
(ii)Ld. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint as the dispute is civil in nature between respondents landlord and complainant / tenant. He submitted that the complainant has failed to establish as to how and when the rent was paid in terms of the lease deed. He emphasised that the complainant instead of pursuing civil remedy is trying to give criminal colour to civil dispute.
7. Findings on the Grounds of Revision
(i) Upon careful perusal of the record, including the complaint, pre-
summoning evidence, police status report, and the impugned order, and after hearing arguments from both parties, this Court finds substantial merit in the revision petition. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 DLND010097402024 Page 8 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
reflects material irregularities, including a failure to apply judicial mind to the admitted facts, the evidence on record, and settled legal principles governing landlord-tenant disputes with criminal overtones. The dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. overlooks prima facie disclosures of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and prematurely categorizes the matter as purely civil without considering the elements of dishonesty, trespass, and potential misappropriation. The grounds raised in the petition (labeled A to E) are addressed seriatim below, demonstrating why the impugned order cannot sustain. Ground A: The revisionist contends that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and without appreciating the facts and law. This Court concurs. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint primarily on three grounds : (i) absence of a specific termination date in the complaint or evidence; (ii) reliance on the police status report's mention of rent arrears without verifying the revisionist's claim of dues clearance. However, this approach ignores critical evidence, such as the legal notice dated 08.03.2019 (Ex. CW1/A), which explicitly demanded access for vacation as per lease terms, thereby implying initiation of termination. Furthermore, the pre-summoning testimonies of CW-1 (Mukesh Kumar) and CW-2 (Dhanesh Kumar) corroborate attempts to vacate and the respondents' refusal, supported by complaints to the SHO (Ex. CW1/B) and DCP (Ex. CW1/C). The Trial Court's failure to weigh this against the respondents' admission in the status report (dtd.27.01.2020) of locking the premises evinces non-application of mind. Legally, at the pre-summoning stage under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the court is only required to assess if a prima facie case exists for inquiry, not to conduct a mini-trial (as held in Pepsi DLND010097402024 Page 9 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128). The impugned order's selective emphasis on purported gaps, while disregarding uncontroverted admissions, renders it perverse and warrants interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. / 438 BNSS.
Ground B: The revisionist asserts that the respondents' admission in the police status report of locking the premises without permission during the tenancy subsistence constitutes wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC) and criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC). This ground is well-founded. The status report explicitly records Respondent No. 1's statement admitting to placing the lock due to alleged non-payment, without the revisionist's consent. Section 442 IPC defines house-trespass as committing criminal trespass by entering or remaining in a building used as a human dwelling or place of business, with intent to commit an offence. Here, the respondents' entry to weld the shutter and deny access transforms a civil possession dispute into a criminal act, as it involves unauthorized interference with the revisionist's lawful possession under the lease deed dated 25.02.2014. The Trial Court overlooked this admission, focusing instead on rent arrears, which does not justify self-help measures. House-trespass arises when entry is made with intent to intimidate or annoy, punishable under Section 447 IPC. Coupled with the revisionist's evidence of threats (as deposed by CW-
2), this discloses prima facie offences, necessitating further inquiry or investigation rather than dismissal.
Ground C: Even assuming arguendo rent arrears (a disputed fact), the revisionist argues that the respondents could not lawfully lock the premises and should have pursued civil remedies. This contention aligns with established law and exposes the impugned order's error in deeming the DLND010097402024 Page 10 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
dispute purely civil. Under tenancy laws, a landlord's remedy for rent default is a civil suit for recovery or eviction under due process, not forcible lockout. Constitutional Courts have repeatedly deprecated self-help recovery measures, holding that they amount to criminal acts. Moreover, locking out a tenant while their articles (here, the ATM machine and fixtures) remain inside constitutes wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, as it voluntarily obstructs lawful movement or access. The Trial Court's reliance on the status report to justify the lockout ignores this prohibition; rent disputes do not license criminal trespass or seizure. Such actions expose landlords to criminal liability, transcending civil boundaries when accompanied by dishonest intent.
Ground D: The revisionist highlights that the lockout occurred before lease expiry, wrongfully restraining access and amounting to theft of the ATM and equipment (Section 379 IPC). This ground merits acceptance. The lease, effective from 25.03.2014 for nine years, would expire around 2023, but the revisionist's legal notice sought early vacation as per terms, which the respondents thwarted by premature locking. Section 378 IPC defines theft as dishonest removal of movable property from possession without consent, intending permanent deprivation. By welding the shutter, the respondents effectively took custody of the ATM (valued equipment) and fixtures, denying removal despite the revisionist's requests. The Trial Court erred in not addressing this, as the evidence (including CW-1's testimony and the status report) establishes prima facie dishonest intent. The impugned order's failure to direct inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to verify the ATM's status compounds this oversight, as physical inspection could confirm tampering or removal.
DLND010097402024 Page 11 of 12Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
Ground E: The Trial Court failed to consider the blocked cash in the ATM, raising suspicions of theft by the respondents. This ground underscores a critical public interest dimension overlooked in the impugned order. CW-1 deposed that ample cash (public money) was trapped, and the respondents' control post-lockout fuels apprehension of misappropriation. Given the fact that ATM with cash currency in it has been seized by respondents, an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is imperative to ascertain if the ATM remains intact.
(ii)In summation, the grounds substantiate that the impugned order is vitiated by errors apparent on the record, warranting revisionary intervention. The matter discloses cognizable offences, necessitating remand for proper adjudication. The classification as a mere civil dispute ignores the criminal facets, as affirmed in precedents emphasizing that rent recovery does not permit lockouts or seizures--remedies lie in civil suits, not self-help.
8. Final Order and Directions for Investigation Under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
(i) In view of the foregoing, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Ld. Trial Court with the following directions:
1. The Ld. Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.
2. To ascertain the veracity of the allegations, particularly regarding the status of the ATM machine and potential theft/misappropriation, the Ld. Trial Court shall exercise powers under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and direct an inquiry/investigation by the SHO, Police Station Vasant Vihar, or an officer deputed by him to forthwith search the premises in question (House No. 79, Basant Nagar, Chatter Singh Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057), if the ATM machine is found, DLND010097402024 Page 12 of 12 Cr Rev / 663/2024 TRANSACTION SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAJ BALA SHARMA AND ANR.
seize it along with any contents (including cash) for preservation as evidence. Such seizure shall be conducted under a proper panchnama, with photography / videography, and the seized items shall be deposited in the malkhana or produced before the Trial Court as directed.
3. The investigation shall clarify whether the ATM machine is still lying in the premises or has been removed/stolen, and a report shall be submitted to the Trial Court within time so fixed by the Ld. Magistrate.
4. Ld. Trial Court is at liberty to order investigation on such other points as deemed fit u/s.202 Cr.P.C. to find out the truth behind the allegations made.
5. After such investigation u/s.202 Cr.P.C. and further inquiry, if any, conducted by the Ld. Trial Court, the Ld. Trial Court may pass a fresh order on summoning u/s.203/204 Cr.P.C. without being influenced by the findings of this Court in the present revision petition.
6. Revisionist to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 01.09.2025 at 2.00 p.m. No order as to costs.
7. TCR, if any be returned, with copy of this judgment.
8. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP
SINGH LALER
PARTAP
SINGH LALER
22nd day of August, 2025 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi/22.08.2025