Delhi District Court
Seema Rao vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010051072024
Cr Rev/212/2024
Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors.
Seema Rao,
Through her POA Holder,
Ms. Saumya Rao,
K/97D, Sheikh Sarai-II
New Delhi-110017 ....... REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1 State of NCT of Delhi
Through SHO,
PS Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017
2. Sujata
W/o Shiv Kumar,
R/o JG-17, Flat No. 4,
Upper Ground Floor, Khirki Extension,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi
3. Pushpa
W/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar,
R/o H. No. 6, 3rd Floor, Laxmi Apartment,
Toot Sari, Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017
4. Savita
W/o Hari Kishan,
R/o 60 C, Choma Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana 122017
Purshotam
Pathak
Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 1 of 13
Digitally signed
by Purshotam
Pathak
Date: 2026.01.23
16:26:29 +0530
5. Shiv Kumar
R/o JG-17, Flat No. 4
Upper Ground Floor,
Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar,
6. Hari Kishan
R/o 60 C. Choma Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana 122017
7. Abhishek Dhiman
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar,
R/o H. No. 6, 3rd Floor, Laxmi Apartment,
Toot Sari, Malviya Nagar,
Delhi-110017
8. Dinesh
S/o Bahadur,
R/o Khandpur ....... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION :20.05.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON :05.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT :23.01.2026
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of the instant petition, revisionist take exception to an order dated 24.02.2024 passed by Ld. MM-02, (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in case bearing CT Cases 594/2023, titled as 'Seema Rao Vs. State NCT of Delhi' whereby Ld. Magistrate has dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for registration of FIR against the respondents.
Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 2 of 13 16:26:31 +0530
2. The factual position has been noted by the Ld. Trial Court in following manner:-
"Succinctly, the case of the complainant is that her father in law and mother in law appointed alleged no. 1 to manage their bank accounts and finances due to their old age. As per the complainant, orally the mother in law of the complainant informed the entire family in the year 1982-83 that her shop of Alaknanda shall be used by her husband and after his demise on 26.02.2009, the same shall be used by her daughters. Further, the complainant alleges that due to deteriorating health of her father in law & mother in law, the alleged no. 1 kept alleged no. 7 as a caretaker and after the death of her father in law alleged no. 1 was also operating his accounts and CGHS. As per the complainant, every time she would question alleged no.1, she would give evasive replies. The complainant alleges that alleged no. 1 also took her mother in law with her on the pretext of taking care of her and on 22.01.2022, without executing any will, she also passed away. As per the complainant, she eventually got to know that a gift deed dated 04.01.2022 was executed by her mother in law in favor of alleged no. 1 for the Alaknanda shop and as per the allegations of the complainant, due to the old age of her mother in law, the deed was executed under undue influence. She also alleges that a family settlement dated 28.02.2022 was executed between the complainant and alleged No. 1 to 3 along with Sanghmitra but now, the alleged persons have refused to perform the same and are threatening the complainant and her daughters. The complainant alleges that alleged person have misappropriated the account of her mother in law and father in law and forged their signatures in CGHS. The counsel for the complainant also pointed out page no. 89, 90 & 91 of complaint submitting that the signatures on these documents are forged and investigation is required to ascertain it.
In the ATR, IO has reported that alleged were inquired and they submitted that no such documents were created and the gift deed in favor of the alleged was found to be genuine. He has further reported that the alleged took care of her mother in her old age and even left her job for the same and out of love and affection, property was given to her. As per the IO, this is a civil dispute."
3. The complainant lodged a complaint with SHO PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as well as to concerned DCP, but no action was Purshotam Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 3 of 13 Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:34 +0530 taken. Hence, the complainant moved an application u/s 156(3) r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM.
4. After perusing the record, the status report and relying upon the judgments titled as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and others 2002 CRI. L.J. 2907, Ld. MM dismissed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by making following relevant observation:-
"I have gone through the submission and gone through the record. The allegations made by complainant clearly show that she is in the knowledge of all the facts. The documents are also in her knowledge and if any investigation is required it can be resorted to at the stage of Section 202 Cr.PC. Since the complainant is aware of entire facts; the witnesses and the documents, I see no ground for which police investigation is required.
In view of the facts as stated, I do not deem it fit to order for registration of FIR.
In the judgment titled as M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs State 2002 CRI. L.J.NOC 333(Delhi) it was observed as under:-
"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 is in possession of evidence to prove allegation, there should be no need to pass order u/s 156. 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 in to the help complainant, police assistance can be taken.
Thus, where allegation 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 such evidence which complainant could be Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 4 of 13 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.23 16:26:38 +0530 unable to collect on his own. As such, declining request to issue direction to police u/s 156(3) would be justified".
In another case titled as Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs. State of UP and others 2002 CRI. L.J. 2907, it was observed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, that where accused with his name and address are known to the complainant, the witness of the evidence are also known to him and it is not a case where any other material evidence is required to be collected and can be preserved, then it is not a case where any investigation was required by the police for launching a successful prosecution.
In the present case also there is no justification for directing the police for registering the FIR, request u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is declined, as all the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant including identity of the accused persons and documentary evidence, as well as the names and addresses of the concerned witnesses. Thus, there is no ground on which the assistance of the police is required. Further, if at any stage the court is of the opinion that investigation in the matter is required, the court will be within its power to order investigation u/s 202 of Cr.PC, and this order shall in no way bar such investigation at latter stage."
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2024, revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
i. that the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
ii. that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the requisite police officials are not directed by the Court to investigate into the matter.
iii. that the impugned order suffers from gross illegality and infirmity being a case of non-application of mind.
iv. that the Ld. Trial Court, erroneously, without application of mind in a routine and mechanical manner, proceeded to dismiss the said complaint so preferred by the revisionst Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 5 of 13 Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:40 +0530 despite the same categorically establishing the commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons.
v. that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order erred in not appreciating the fact that despite the accused persons committing cognizable offences, the police officials miserably failed to register a case against the accused persons.
vi. that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order erred in observing that the instant case did not necessitate the registration of an FIR. In this regard it is submitted that the nature of the controversy involved in the instant case is criminal, as the said complaint specifically avers in great detail, about the commission of several cognizable offences such as theft, forgery and fraud.
vii. that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order has erred in not appreciating the fact that the accused persons on multiple occasions, forged valuable documents such as CGHS claim forms, bank documents as well as the Rent Agreement, for their own personal gain yet no case was registered against the said persons by the police.
viii. that Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order erred in not appreciating the fact that theft of valuable documents such as documents pertaining to the title and ownership of the subject properties, was committed by the Purshotam Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 6 of 13 Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:43 +0530 accused persons for their own unlawful gain and in order to cheat the Petitioner and her daughters off of their rightful share in the estate of the in-Laws of the Petitioner.
ix. that Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order erred in not appreciating the fact that the instant case warrants the custodial interrogation of the accused persons. It is submitted that in order to unearth the entire conspiracy so hatched by the accused persons against the revisionist, custodial interrogation of the accused persons would be necessary.
x. that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order erroneously observed that 'there was no justification for directing the police to investigate further into the matter as all the facts and circumstances were within the knowledge of the complainant/petitioner including identity of the accused persons and documentary evidence, as well as the names and addresses of the concerned witnesses'.
xi. that Ld. Trial Court while passing the Impugned Order erred in not appreciating the fact that documents qua the ownership and title of the subject properties continue to remain in the possession of the Accused.
xii. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in a routine & mechanical manner, without the application of judicial mind.Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 7 of 13
Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:45 +0530
6. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and also on behalf of respondents and Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also gone through the reply filed by the respondents and perused the trial court record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued that all the evidence is not within the possession of revisionist and assistance of police would be required for effective investigation. He submitted that the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences by the respondents, therefore, the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the SHO concerned may be directed to register the FIR against respondents and to investigate the matter in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judgment titled XYZ Vs. State of M. P. (2023) 9 SCC 705, Femeena E. Vs. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online Ker 836.
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. It is stated that respondent no. 2 had taken care of her mother in her old age and even she left her job for same, so out of love and affection property was given to her through gift deed. Ld. counsel argued that allegations of forgery and theft are wrong and frivolous. Further, the revisionist has suppressed true and material facts from the court and has not Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Date: Pathak 2026.01.23 16:26:50 +0530 approached with clean hands. The present petition filed by the revisionist is wholly false, frivolous and vexatious in entirety and has been filed with malafide intention and for harassing the respondents. Hence, same is liable to be dismissed.
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 exercise for issuance of directions for registration of FIR is not an empty formality. It is serious exercise of judicial discretion. It must be exercised 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.
12. Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 9 of 13 Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:52 +0530 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 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''.Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 10 of 13
Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:56 +0530
15. After going through the order of Ld. Trial Court and complaint, I find that the learned trial court had observed that, revisionist is in the knowledge of all the facts, the documents are also in her knowledge and if any investigation is required it can be resorted to at the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Making such an observation and passing such an order was completely within the jurisdiction and power of Ld. MM.
16. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise her discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, unless very glaring defects are shown, 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."
17. 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 :
Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 11 of 13 Date: 2026.01.23 16:26:58 +0530 "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 judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
18. All the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant/ revisionist including identity of accused persons and documentary evidence, as well as the names and addresses of the concerned witnesses. If the revisionist 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.
19. 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 revisionist to proceed with complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and has clarified that complainant's option of police investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C are kept open. Unlike Section 154 Cr.P.C. which uses an expression 'shall' showing mandatory character, Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. uses an expression Purshotam Pathak Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 12 of 13 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.23 16:27:01 +0530 'may' which is clearly discretionary. It is clear that revisionist will have sufficient opportunity to establish her claim.
20. 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 revisionist is dismissed.
21. The revision petition is disposed off.
22. TCR along with copy of this judgment be sent back to Ld. Trial Court.
23. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) 2026.01.23 16:27:04 +0530 TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 23th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 13 signed pages) Cr Rev/212/2024 Seema Rao Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi and Ors. Page 13 of 13