Delhi District Court
Mr Kamal Gupta And Ors vs M/S Lr Builders Pvt Ltd on 4 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN-1: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
CR No. 638/2025
CNR No. : DLCT01-017114-2019
KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ...REVISIONIST
VERSUS
L.R.BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT
04.12.2025
O R D E R:-
1. The present order shall decide the maintainability of the present revision petition before this court.
2. The brief facts as necessary for the disposal of the present issue are that a complaint u/s 223 of BNSS, 2023 was filed by M/s L.R. Builders alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 452 (1)/447/448 of the Companies Act along with section 316/318/319 of BNS, 2023. Ld. ACJM (Spl. Act) Central vide order dated 06.10.2025 summoned accused no. 1 to 5 for committing an offence punishable u/s 452 of the Companies Act.
3. The present revision petition has been filed by accused no. 1, 2 and 4 u/s 438 and 440 BNSS which was listed before this court on 11.11.2025 challenging the said order. On the said date arguments were heard at length. This court after hearing arguments had reserved the application seeking stay for CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 1 orders on 14.11.2025. On 14.11.2025 an application was filed by the respondent that Crl. M.C. No. 8092/2025 has been filed by the respondent before the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was adjourned for 21.11.2025.
4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. MC No. 8092/2025 vide order dated 17.11.2025 directed this court at the first instance to take up and decide the issue of maintainability. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:-
"Therefore, it is directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi shall in the first instance, take up and decide the issue of maintainability of the revision petition on the next date of hearing, i.e. 21.11.2025".
5. It is in this context the issue of maintainability has to be decided by this court.
6. It may also be noted that arguments were heard on 21.11.2025, and case was listed for orders on 29.11.2025. On that day orders could not be passed as respondent had preferred a transfer petition bearing T.P. (Crl.) 143/2025 titled as M/s. L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kamala Gupta & Ors. before the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQ) which came to be dismissed on 28.11.2025.
7. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has argued that Ld. ACJM lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the property in question is situated within the jurisdiction of Rohini courts. It is submitted that by virtue of amendment to Section 435 of the Companies Act, wherein Section 452, has now been excluded, the jurisdiction would lie within the jurisdictional CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 2 Magistrate and not with the Special Courts/Ld. ACJM (Special Act).
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that revisionist is precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction before this court as it was never argued by revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court and in so far as Delhi is concerned Hon'ble Delhi High Court has constituted a special court to deal with Special Act and by virtue of the same Ld. ACJM (Special Act) would only have the requisite jurisdiction dehors the place where the property is situated.
9. Secondly, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the revisionist herein had filed a petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging the summoning order bearing Crl. M.C. no. 7836/2025 which came to be withdrawn vide order dated 07.11.2025 since no liberty was granted to the revisionist. It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the present revision is not maintainable. Lastly, it was argued that in the interim application Section 528 of BNSS has been mentioned which are inherent power excersiable by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the trial court record.
11. Section 438 BNSS, 2023 which is equivalent to Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any subordinate criminal court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 3 correctness, legality or proprietary of any finding, sentence or order. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Rajendra Rajoriya Vs. Jagat Narayan Thapak & Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 234.
12. It is vehemently argued that interim stay application mention Section 528 of the BNSS, which is akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. are on this very ground revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The revision petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold, on this ground as there is a possibility that the addition of Section 528 BNSS, might be a result of 'copy and paste"
syndrome which is quite common these days. The revision cannot be held to be non-maintainable on this ground alone. The power of revision are wider and the movement any illegality is noticed, the court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under the provisions of law.
13. In order to appreciate the rival contention between the parties, the object of amendment needs to be noted. Section 435 of the Companies Act was amended, the amendment was notified in 2021 the legislature took away the offences punishable under Section 452 from the purview of Section 435 of the Companies Act.
14. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Vs. Anthony Das & Anr. 2024 SCC Online Kerala 6871 has discussed the scope and object of the amendment and has noted the statement of object and reasons of the Companies (Amendment) Bill 2020 by which Section 452 of the Act was excluded from the ambit of Section 435 of the CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 4 Companies Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court also took into account the report of Company Law Committee. The Committee opined that the competent Court to adjudicate an offence u/s 452 of the Companies Act is the Special Court established in the area where the registered office of the Company whose employee/officer has committed the alleged offence is located. The committee noted that several representations have been received seeking necessary amendment to address this issue so that companies can approach courts at the place where the property has been wrongly withheld. The committee was of the opinion that Section 435 of the 2013 Act may be amended to exclude Section 452 from its ambit. This would make Section 436 in applicable to offences triable under Section 452 and therefore, the jurisdiction in such cases would be determined in accordance with Cr.P.C.
15. In light of the report of the committee the amendment was proposed which was adopted by the Parliament and Section 452 of the Companies Act was excluded from the ambit of Section 435.
16. What is the effect of such exclusion?
17. The offences u/s 452 of the Companies Act can be tried by the jurisdictional Magistrate at the place where the offence is set to have been committed as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the complaint was filed in 2025, subsequent to the amendment. In so far as Delhi is concerned, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order no.
17/DHC/Gaz.03/VI.E.2(a)/2009 on 15.10.2009 constituted a CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 5 Court to deal with cases of Special acts including Companies Act, in Tis Hazari to try the offences under the Companies Act. This allocation of work was purely an administrative order for the convenience of all and cannot be equated with a Specific court as a statutory notification is required under Section 435 of the Companies Act.
18. This allocation of work was done prior to coming into force of the Companies Act 2013 and the subsequent amendment but by virtue of the subsequent amendment as notified in 2021, the administrative order still holds good even today as the jurisdiction to try all the offence u/s 452 of the Act now lies with ACJM(Special Act).
19. The arguments of respondent that issue of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time before the revisional court is flawed. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. Reference in this regard can be made to Fatma Biwi Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 6 SCC 789.
20. In so far as the present case is concerned the complaint for the offence punishable u/s 452 of the Companies Act are filed before the Ld. ACJM (Special Court) by virtue of the aforesaid notification of the Hon'ble High Court. The offence can be said to be committed at the place, where the registered office is situated or at the place where the property is situated. Both the courts would have jurisdiction by virtue of Section 178 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the registered office of the Company was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Central District. So either way it is looked at the Ld. ACJM CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 6 (Special Act) had the requisite jurisdiction to try the offence punishable u/s 452 of the Companies Act.
21. It is nobody's case that the order passed by Ld. ACJM/Special Act is an order passed by Special Court under the companies Act as no notification has been issued by the Central Govt. notifying this court as a Special Court. It is to be noted that if an order is passed by a Special Court notified u/s 435 of the Companies Act, this court would have no jurisdiction in light of Section 437 of the Companies Act. Respondent in his written submissions has projected that it is the case of revisionist that order has been passed by a Special Court, and hence u/s 437 of the Companies Act, revision is barred, which is not so. The revisionist either in his petition or written submissions has not raised any such argument. Prima-facie the complaint filed by the respondent is maintainable before the Ld. ACJM(Special Act), and as such the revision would be maintainable.
22. The issue of maintainability is being agitated by the respondent therefore, the burden was upon the respondent to show as to how the revision was not maintainable. Respondent cannot harp on the argument of revisionist to raise the issue of maintainability. Dehors the argument of revisionist, the respondent is required to show that how the revision petition was not maintainable.
23. Respondent has twice filed written submissions on record, the first on on 13.11.2025 and the second one on 28.11.2025. In the first written submissions in para 5 it is the case of respondent that order has not been passed by a Special CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 7 Court constituted under the Companies Act. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Complaint in the present case has not been instituted under or before a Special Court designated under Section 435 of the Act. Rather, it has been filed before the Learned CMM, who has been vested by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on its administrative side, with jurisdiction to deal with matters under Special Acts, including the Companies Act, in accordance with the administrative distribution of work amongst Magistrates. The mere fact that certain Magistrates are assigned to handle matters under Special Acts, including that of the Companies Act, does not elevate such courts to the status of a "Special Court" within the meaning of Section 435 of the Companies Act".
24. If that be the case, then it does not lie in their mouth to argue that revision is not maintainable before this court.
25. A revision petition may not be maintainable on account of lack of inherent jurisdiction or because the order does not suffer from any illegality. If this court returns any finding on the latter part, it would be touching the merits of the case which cannot be done in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 17.11.2021. In so far as the former part is concerned, revision petition would be maintainable against an order passed by Ld. ACJM(Special Act) as it is not a Special Court constituted under the Companies Act.
26. Now coming to the next submission that revisionist has filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was withdrawn without there being any liberty. In the application filed by the respondent, this is the only ground taken.
CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 827. It is submitted by the respondent that in the present revision petition in para 7.42 a false statement has been made with an intent to mislead this court which amounts to playing fraud which negates every proceedings and therefore, revision is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while allowing withdrawal had not granted any liberty to file the revision petition.
28. In support of its case respondent has relied upon the judgment of Brajesh Kasliwal Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors.2020 SCC Online Bom 6152.
29. In order to appreciate the rival contentions the order/passed in Crl. M.C. 7836/2025 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 07.11.2025 is reproduced as under:-
" 1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he wishes to withdraw the present petition as he intends to file a revision petition against the order impugned herein
2. The present petition thus stands dismissed as withdrawn.
sd/-"
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab 2024 SCC Online SC 4108 has held that the procedural laws governing criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in our country are quite dis-similar. The principle of resjudicata are not applicable. In the present case no findings was returned by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the merits of the case. It may also be noted that counsel for the respondent was appearing before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and no objection qua the withdrawal of the petition was taken by the CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 9 respondent before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. To now argue that by virtue of such withdrawal the present petition is not maintainable is preposterous, if respondent had any objection to the withdrawal it ought to be raised before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Having not done so, the respondent is precluded from challenging the maintainability of the revision petition on this ground.
31. In so far as the judgment of Brajesh Kasliwal Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online Bom. 6152 is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the case. In Brajesh Kasliwal (Supra) it was held that once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn, he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition. The case is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In case Brajesh Kasliwal(Supra) the petitioner therein has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and sought a similar relief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.08.2020, after hearing argument was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution and at that stage Ld. Counsel sought withdrawal which was allowed. In the present case, only a simplicitor submission was made by the revisionist herein seeking withdrawal by categorically stating that he intends to file revision petition, which was allowed. The judgment is not applicable. In the very same judgment it was noted that, while withdrawal of a writ petition filed in High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res-judicata. Clearly the CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 10 judgment of Brajesh Kasliwal (Supra) has no application and even on this ground the revision petition cannot be dismissed as being not maintainable.
32. Thus, the revision petition is held to be maintainable before this court.
33. The Trial Court Record shows that respondent has filed an application under Section 452 (2) seeking possession of the property in question and is pursuing the same despite the summoning order under challenge before this court. In case the trial court proceeds to pass adverse order against the revisionist, the present revision would be rendered infructuous, leaving the revisionist remedy less. The trial court may continue to hear arguments on the said application but shall not pass any final order until the next date of hearing.
34. The application dated 11.11.2025 filed by the respondent seeking dismissal of the revision petition as not maintainable stands dismissed.
35. The copy of the order along with the Trial Court Record be sent to the Ld.Trial Court for information and compliance.
Announced on this 04th day of December 2025 (ANKUR JAIN-I) ASJ-04/Central/Delhi.
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.12.04
16:50:21 +0530
CR NO. OF 638/2025 PAGE NO. 11