Delhi District Court
Ravi Kumar Solanki vs Vinod Kumar Gaur on 30 October, 2025
DLSE010106092024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION No. 615/2024
RAVI KUMAR SOLANKI
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o Flat No. 7, Plot No. 29,
CA Neel Kamal Apartment, Ward No.1,
Khasra No. 1151/3, Mehrauli,
New Delhi
......Revisionist.
VERSUS
1. VINOD KUMAR GAUR
S/o LT. Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma
R/o 80/3A, Basant Nagar, Vasant Vihar,
Vasant Vihar-I, NEW DELHI- 110057.
2. SH. SHRI NIWAS
S/o LT. SH. Maman Singh
R/o WZ-52A, Gali No.8, First Floor,
Pritivi Park, New Delhi-110019.
3. DINESH SINGH BISHT
Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 1 of 12
Office- DDA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
4. SH. ANIRBAN SARDAR,
S/o LT. Parthasarathi Sardar,
R/o H.NO.7,
Nalni Sarkar Street, Shyam Bazar Street,
Kolkata, W.B. 700004.
5. SMT. SHARMISHTHA GUHA ROY
R/O Flat No. 9, Lord Sinha Road,
Middletown Row, Kolkata-700071
6. SH. DIPAK KU. SARDAR
Office - A.R.A., III, Kolkata,
West Bengal.
7. SH. JAYANTA SARDAR
R/o H. No. 7,
Nalini Sarkar Street, Shyam Bazar Street,
Koalkata WB 700004.
8. SH. SUSANTA SARDAR
R/O H. No. 7,
Nalini Sarkar Street, Shyam Bazar Street,
Koalkata WB 700004.
.....Respondents
Date of institution : 15.10.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 29.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025
Decision : Disposed of
Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 2 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition U/s 438/440 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class/South East/Saket Courts in Ct. Case bearing No. 126/2023 titled as "Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur", whereby the application moved by the revisionist U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the matter was listed for recording of pre-summoning evidence. For the sake of convenience, the revisionist herein shall be referred to as 'complainant'.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The facts of the case has been correctly noted by Ld. Magistrate in the impugned order. The relevant extracts of the said order are as under:-
".......................................................................................... a. That the applicant and his friend namely Mr. Raj Kumar were engaged in the business of property dealing and that they used to visit DDA, Vikas Sadan in relation to their work.
b. The applicant met accused Dinesh Singh Bisht, who was an official of the DDA, and accused Dinesh Singh Bisht informed the applicant that one of the friends of accused Dinesh Singh Bisht wanted to sell his property, and that the accused could arrange a meeting with the owners i.e. accused persons namely Anirban Sardar, Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 3 of 12 Sharmishta Guha Roy, Deepak Sardar, Jayanta Sardar and Susanta Sardar, all of whom were residents of Kolkata. c. That in September, 2018, accused Dinesh Singh Bisht arranged a meeting between the applicant and his friend with the accused parties and that the applicant and his friend were also introduced to accused persons Vinod Kumar Gaur and Srinivas and that it was projected to the applicant that accused Vinod Kumar Gaur and Srinivas had complete rights to sell the property on account of the perpetual lease deed and copy of MOU alongwith relinquishment deed of the actual owners i.e. Anirban Sardar, Sharmishta Guha Roy, Deepak Sardar, Jayanta Sardar and Susanta Sardar.
d. That the parties visited the premises in question and accused persons Vinod Kumar Gaur, Srinivas and Dinesh Singh Bisht assured the applicant that they would vacate the property after execution of MOU.
e. That upon assurances of all the accused persons, the applicant agreed to execute the MOU and that the applicant made payment of Rs.13,10,000/- for purchase of the said property.
f. That the applicant subsequently got to know that the lease of the property in question has been cancelled, but that the accused persons assured the applicant that they would take steps to clear the issue.
g. That the applicant was waiting for the mutation but later came to know that all the accused persons together cheated the applicant by preparing false and fake documents.
h. That the applicant made complaint to the concerned SHO and DCP but that no FIR was lodged despite the same.
Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 4 of 12 .........................................................................................."
3. The Ld. Magistrate called an ATR from the SHO concerned. The same is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"Most respectfully, it is submitted that the status report has already filed in the Hon'ble court on previous date, which is like this, that complainant Sh. Ravi Kumar is engaged in property dealing with his friend namely Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Mangey Ram. Complainant Ravi Kumar Solanki alleged that he along with his friend Raj Kumar visited the DDA Vikas Sadan, INA relating to his business activities in 2018, where he met alleged Dinesh Singh Bisht, an employee of DDA Complainant further stated that Dinesh Singh Bisht informed them that one of his known wanted to sell his property and arranged a meeting with alleged Vinod Kumar and Siri Niwas, who stated that they had entered into an MOU for the property bearing No B-1/12 Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, which was a Lease Hold Property and they had absolute right to sell that property and showed them the Perpetual Lease Deed and copy of MOU in respect of that property Alleged Mr. Dinesh Singh Bisht assured them that if they entered into an agreement/MOU he would complete all the paper formalities getting the property freehold. On the assurance of Mr Dinesh Singh Bisht they entered into an MOU dated 09/12/2018 and the total sale consideration was settled at Rs. 12 Crores.
Complainant further stated that he paid Rs. 11,40,000/through cheques an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given to Mr Dinesh Singh Bisht separately During the course of enquiry it was learnt that the MOU Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 5 of 12 between the complainant and alleged No. 1 & 2 dated 09/10/18 is in plain papers and neither it is notarized nor registered Complainant could not provide any evidence that the MOU was executed in the office of alleged No. 3 i.e. Dinesh Bist.
ASI Lal Singh the previous EO called both the parties. The matter was found civil in nature. Hence he filed the complaint. The same is enclosed.
Any order or direction passed by Hon'ble court shall be abided by.
Submitted please SI Mohd. Kafeel PS K.M. Pur."
4. Thereafter, the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to pass the impugned order dated 29.07.2024.
GROUNDS OF REVISION
5. The grounds cited by the revisionist are as under:
A. Because the impugned orders dated 29.07.2024 are illegal, perverse and show devoid of due applicable of mind. B. Because the Ld. Magistrate has not mentioned the actual facts in orders dated 29.07.2024.
C. Because the Ld Magistrate had find that the ATR was not filed properly by the IO and as per the order 28.03.2024 directed/notice to the IO to proper ATR and appear in person on NDOH, on 18.07.2024 and on 18.07.24 IO had again filed Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 6 of 12 same ATR without any further investigation/enquiry but the Ld JMFC has not mentioned the same fact.
D. Because the IO had not investigate the matter properly and he did not collect the original/MOU nor he had not verified the signatures of the revisionist and respondent No.l and 2, with the malafide intention of respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 had prepared MOU just to grab the amount and cheat the revisionist.
E. Because the Ld JMFC has mentioned (In Para No.5 of the Orders 29.07.24) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s.Skipper Beverages V. State" and mentioned that a cognizable offence ought to be passed by a magistrate to the Police only in those cases where the complainant may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court themselves". That the allegation is Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust and same is cognizable offence, Revisionist is never met with the respondents No.4 to 8 and he did not collect/produce Call Details/Account Statement /Thump impression and Original property documents not produce by himself and not possible without by the Police to collect and produce Evidence before the Court. But same fact has not been mentioned by the Ld.JMFC, Saket Court, ND. F. Because the revisionist never met with the respondents no.4to8 and revisionist also not known the respondents No.4 Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 7 of 12 to 8, but the Ld.JMFC had wrongly mentioned the respondent knows all the respondents but he never met with the respondents No.4 to 8 nor he did not knows the respondents No.4 to 8.
G. Because the respondents No.1 to 3 did not have any proper title but they all are executed MOU/Agreement to sell and received Rs. 13,10,000/-from the revisionist and respondents No.1 to 3 are cheated and broken the trust of revisionist, the Ld JMFC has not mentioned the same.
H. Because Ld Magistrate has not mentioned the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, Criminal Conspiracy and Criminal breach of Trust:-
a) Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:
that the respondents No.1 to 3 dishonestly inducing delivery of property and cheated the revisionist, that the respondents No.1 to 3 are not the Owners of the property nor in possession of the property but they all are executed the MOU/Agreement to Sell and also received a payment from the revisionist.
L. Because the Ld. Magistrate has not mentioned the complaint is made out under Section 420/406/120-B and 34 of IPC but Ld. Magistrate has not considered the same and ignored the actual facts of the case.
M. Because the Ld. Magistrate has erroneously not mentioned Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 8 of 12 the judgement given by the Counsel of Revisionist that shows that in cognizable offences/Acts done by the respondents a) Mrs. Priyanka Srivastav & Anr Versus State of UP & Ors, b) Sarabjeet Singh Vs Government of UP & ORS c) Lalita Kumari Vs Government of UP & ORS.
N. Because the respondents No.1 to 3 had received a payment of Rs.13,10,000/- from the revisionist and when revisionist applied for mutation of the property where he came to that the lease of the abovesaid property was already cancelled by DDA and pending before the Court for adjudication it is very clear that the respondents are not the legal owners of the property nor in possession of the property and they all of them under a criminal conspiracy and cheated the revisionist with the tune of Rs. 13,10,000/-.
6. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate and to issue directions to the SHO concerned to register an FIR against the respondents.
Submissions of the Respondent
7. On the other hand, the prayer has been opposed by the Ld. Counsel for respondents. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 and 3.
Discussion Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 9 of 12
8. This court has considered the rival contentions. Records have also been considered.
9. The entire law regarding exercise of jurisdiction U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate has been elaborated recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Alok Kumar Vs. Harsh Mander 2023 SSC Online Del 4219. At Para 40, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"To summarise, a conspectus of the above-mentioned judicial precedents reveal the following :
(i). Power under Section 156(3) Cr. PC necessitates application of judicial mind.
(ii) Such power is to be exercised in a judicious manner, and cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily.
(iii) Magistrates cannot direct registration of FIR on mere asking of complainant."
10. It is apparent from the above that a Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind while disposing of a prayer U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that directions for registration of an FIR could not be passed in an arbitrary or mechanical manner.
11. It would be appropriate to reproduce the operative portion of the impugned order dated 29.07.2024. The same is as under:-
".................................................................................................
5. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. enables the court to direct investigation into cognizable offences once the statutory and other legal requirements stand fulfilled. However, as Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 10 of 12 cautioned by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Skipper Beverages v. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625, the discretion of a court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. It is settled position of law that the power to issue direction to investigate into a cognizable offence ought to be passed by a Magistrate to the police only in those cases where the complainant may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court themselves, thereby necessitating the need for State machinery to step in and aid the complainant.
6. In the present case, the central dispute seems pertain to the title of the accused persons regarding the property described in para 5 of the complaint, for which the applicant avers that the accused persons cheated the applicant on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, leading to the applicant parting with Rs.13,10,000/-. However, the applicant has not annexed any kind of prima facie proof to highlight the fraudulent intention of the accused persons in regard to their title in connection with the property in question. The facts essentially pertain to a civil dispute between the parties. Be that as it may, the identity of the accused persons is not disputed and is in the knowledge of the applicant, and there appears no requirement of custodial interrogation of the accused. 7. In light of the aforesaid, it appears that the applicant has not made out sufficient grounds for this Court to issue directions to the police to investigate into the alleged offence. Present application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. accordingly stands dismissed. ................................................................................................."
12. Apparently, Ld. Magistrate has duly recorded and considered Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 11 of 12 the factual matrix leading to the filing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ld. Magistrate has correctly observed that all the evidence is within the reach and knowledge of the complainant ( i.e. revisionist herein) and no new material is to be collected with the assistance of police. Ld. Magistrate has correctly observed that identity of the offenders ( i.e. respondents No. 1 to 8) is also within the knowledge of the complaint ( i.e. revisionist herein). This court does not find any reasonable ground to differ from the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. There is nothing illegal or perverse in the order dated 29.07.2024. The present revision petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
13. TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment.
14. This revision file be consigned to Record Room, as per rules.
Digitally
signed by
Dictated and Announced LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN
Date:
in open Court on 29.10.2025
2025.10.30
15:19:02
+0530
(Lovleen)
ASJ-03 (South East),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Crl. Revision No: 615/2024, Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs. Vinod Kumar Gaur page no. 12 of 12