Delhi District Court
Smt.Aruna Rai vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) And Ors on 17 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010103892024
Cr Rev/384/2024
SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND
ORS.
Smt. Aruna Rai
W/o Ranjay Rai,
R/o House No. 705B, Flat no. B-1,
First Floor, Kansal Residency,
Ward No. 6, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030 .........REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Avinash Singh
S/o Mr. Rajketu Singh
R/o Gandhi Nagar,
(In front of MLA Ajit Kumar Purve's House)
Bibiganj, Brahampura,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842003
3. Jayashree
W/o Mr. Avinash Singh
R/o Gandhi Nagar
(In front of MLA Ajit Kumar Purve's House),
Bibiganj, Brahampura,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842003 ....... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.09.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 30.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17.07.2025
Digitally
Cr Rev/384/2024 signed by
PURSHOTTAM
SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 1 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18
14:07:51
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall decide the criminal revision petition under Section 438/440 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 05.06.2024 in complaint CT No. 1461/2023 PS Mehrauli, titled as 'Aruna Rai Vs. Avinash Singh.', whereby Ld. MM-05, South dismissed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions to SHO, PS Mehrauli, Delhi to register FIR and to investigate the matter.
2. Before moving to the merits of the present revision, at the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist, after delay of 2 days. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has orally submitted that delay in filing the present revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional. Accordigly, I do not find any deliberate attempt on part of the revisionist in avoiding the filing of petition. The condonation in filing the revision is allowed and delay stands condoned.
3. The Ld. MM has noted the factual position as under:-
"2. It is the case of the complainant that accused no. 1 i.e. Avinash Singh approached the complainant and lured her to invest money in share trading through him and his wife Jayashree. It was assured that huge profits shall be earned therefrom. It is stated by the complainant that since wife of the accused was having a franchise of Reliance Security and also expertise in share trading, all the share trading would be done through her and as per her advise. Accused no. 1 also advised the complainant to open a Demat Account / trading account in her name. It is further alleged by the complainant Digitally signed Cr Rev/384/2024 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 2 of 14 PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18 14:07:56 +0530 that accused Avinash further deceived and lured her that he would share 50% profit with the complainant gained through the said share trading. It was promised that in case, any loss is caused, he would return the whole principal amount invested till date in the said share to the complainant.
3. As per complaint, accused Avinash himself opened a demat account in the name of the complainant by filling in all particulars that are required therein in Reliance Securities. It is stated that he himself created her login ID and password to operate the account. Complainant, after believing upon the same, had allowed to do the necessary formalities in opening the demat account of complainant. It is stated that accused Avinash Singh operated the said demat account and started doing trading through it from 19.03.2021 and complainant kept on depositing several amounts in her trading demat account as per his requests.
4. It is further stated that when the complainant asked the accused to give profits accrued from the share trading in question, the accused told the complainant that she has suffered loss in her shares and there were no more funds with him to do further trading. Accused asked the complainant to give him more money to recover the previous loss of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
5. Complainant has stated that accused assured her of additional benefits upon further investment of money. The complainant deposited Rs. 3 Lakhs more in her demat account for the recovery of Rs. 10 Lakhs that were already accrued to her. However, accused again told her that additional amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs has also gone in losses. Complainant has stated that when complainant contacted the accused telephonically as well as through whatsapp to return her invested money, the accused sent a whatsapp message and told the complainant that he accepted the fact that Rs. 13 Lakhs was his responsibility and he would return the same to the complainant.
6. Complainant has further stated that the accused assured her and returned Rs. 3 Lakhs out of Rs. 13 Lakhs through a cheque issued by his wife. It is further stated that accused again assured her and her husband to give more money to make over the loss of Rs. 10 Lakhs already invested by the complainant. Believing upon him, complainant's husband borrowed Rs. 5 Lakhs on 5% interest per month from the market and the said money was deposited in complainant's demat account. Accused further promised the complainant and her husband that he will pay additional 5% interest per month on Rs. 5 Lakhs. 7. Complainant has stated that once again the accused sold all the positions of Rs. 5 Lakhs leading to a loss of Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18 14:07:59 +0530 Rs.3,49,000/-. Thereafter, complainant's husband along-with his friend visited at the house of accused on 12.11.2022 and 19.01.2023 to discuss the matter with his parents. During discussion in the first meeting, parents of accused agreed to make over the loss suffered by the complainant in parts / installments however accused blocked the mobile numbers of complainant and her husband.
8. Complainant has alleged that upon a query made to Reliance Securities Customer Care, she was informed that name of her mother was wrongly entered as 'Rani Devi' instead of 'Chandrawati Singh'. It is alleged that accused intentionally and deliberately filled the wrong name to restrain the complainant from getting correct information / status of her demat account which was being operated by the accused. It is hence stated that the accused committed cheating by his wrongful act and caused loss to the complainant for his wrongful gain.
9. Complainant has stated that her husband is still paying the interest borrowed by them from third parties since August 2021.
Complainant has further stated that she had no personal saving in her account as she had deposited Rs. 15 Lakhs in her demat account on the assurances of the accused. It is alleged that accused transferred all the money of complainant from her demat account by using her pin and password and siphoned all her money deceitfully and fraudulently under the garb of share trading and earning profit. The complainant has thus prayed that directions be given to SHO, PS Mehrauli for registration of an FIR in the present case."
4. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 13.05.2023 with SHO Mehrauli Police Station and thereafter on 14.06.2023 he made a complaint to DCP (South), but no action was taken. Hence, the complainant moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM.
5. After perusing the record, the status report and relying upon the judgments titled as Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported as (2015) 6 SCC 439 and M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 4 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18 14:08:03 +0530 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625, Ld. MM dismissed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by making following relevant observation:-
" At the outset, upon a conjoint reading of the complaint and the ATR, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not expedient to order investigation in the present matter in exercise of the judicial power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that the complainant and the proposed accused persons are relatives. It is stated in the complaint itself that the complainant had great faith and trust in the accused persons and thus relied upon their representations while deciding to invest money. It is prima facie clear that the facts constituting the alleged crime and identity of the proposed accused persons is well within the knowledge of the complainant. There is nothing in the case necessitating police investigation or intervention. This Court does not deem fit to involve the police machinery at this stage. If required, an inquiry u/s 202 CrPC can be directed at the appropriate stage.
Taking note of the aforesaid, the application of complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking order of registration of FIR and investigation by police, is hereby dismissed."
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2024, the revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
i. that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that alleged Avinash Singh and his wife Ms. Jaya Shree lured the complainant for good returns in share market and thereafter they opened an online Demat account of complainant for which the complainant provided all the details to alleged persons required for opening an online demat account.
Cr Rev/384/2024 PURSHOTTAM SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 5 of 14 PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:07 +0530 ii. that Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that
whenever husband of the complainant asked the status of trading account, the alleged persons always assured them to give some more time to give good returns.
iii. that Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that after opening the demat account, when the trading account started showing regular losses after investment of about 13 lacs, the alleged persons blocked the complainant share account/ ID.
iv. that in the given facts and circumstances of this case, commission of cognizable offences are made out and complainant is not equipped to collect or produce the documentary and scientific evidence in support of the accusation stated in the present case.
v. that the login IDs, passwords and security questions/ answers which were used by agent/ Avinash Singh after opening of trading/ demat account in reliance security are in his knowledge only and same cannot be procured by the petitioner, therefore, police investigation is mandatory.
vi. that for doing online trading on system terminal, mobile App Tick Pro of reliance smart money and I.P. Address which are required in the trading during relevant period are in the knowledge of respondent PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 6 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:10 +0530 Avinash Singh, for which registration of FIR is necessary.
vii. that the Ld. MM has dismissed the application on the basis of contents and averments mentioned in the status report filed by the IO, without considering that the IO has not thoroughly investigated the matter and concealed the true and correct facts.
viii. that the Ld. MM has taken the sole ground for dismissing the application that the power conferred is discretionary and court is not bound to direct the investigation by the police even if the allegations made in the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence.
ix. that the Ld. MM has passed the impugned order without application of mind on the basis of unwarranted and uncalled presumptions which are not allowed in the criminal jurisprudence.
x. that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate is unjust, unfair, unwarranted therefore liable to be set-aside.
7. Ld. counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds has argued that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without application of judicial mind. He submitted that the IO of the case has not properly and PURSHOTTAM Cr Rev/384/2024 PATHAK SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 7 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:15 +0530 thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the status report favouring the respondent no. 2 and 3. He further submitted that the revisionist is the victim of circumstances. He also submitted that the Ld. MM has failed to consider the materials available before court and has passed an order which is not in accordance with the facts pleaded. He contended that there is a need for police investigation. He contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 held that it is mandatory to register FIR in a case disclosing commission of cognizable offence. He relied upon certain judgments in support of his contention i.e. Amit Sharma Vs State & Ors, reported in 2010 IV AD (CRI) (DHC) 201, Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors writ petition Crl. No. 68/2008, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State reported in 2006 1 AD (Cr) SC 505, Braham prakash Gupta Vs. State 2008 (4) JCC 2331, Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 677, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, Puran Mal Gupta and Anr. Vs. State and Anr. 2008 (4) JCC 2347 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368.
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. He contended that respondents are innocent and have not engaged in any conduct that could be construed as an offence against the Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 8 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18 14:08:19 +0530 revisionist. He further argued that revisionist has approached the court with unclear hand and is motivated by malafide intention and the action of the revisionist is aimed at causing undue harm, distress and harassment to the respondents. He further argued that the present revision has been filed with an unwarranted delay of 2 days. He contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that there is no need for any police investigation. Ld. counsel argued that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed with cost as the revisionist has failed to show any cause of action in his favour and against the respondents. He submitted that revisionist and her husband were fully aware of the facts and had actively participated in the trading activities. Further, he argued that the revisionist failed to disclose any cogent ground or reason to show that the Ld. MM committed any mistake while passing the order dated 05.06.2024. He held reliance upon judgment i.e. M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi).
9. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for both the parties. I have also gone through the reply and perused the trial court record.
10. 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.
Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 9 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18 14:08:24 +0530
11. 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".
12. 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.
13. Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, warranting complex and scientific investigation for the collection of evidence.
14. In the case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi) it was held 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 Cr Rev/384/2024 Digitally signed by SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 10 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.18 14:08:27 +0530 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''.
15. Reliance is also placed on Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 351, whereby 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".
16. After going through the order of Ld. Trial Court and complaint, I find that the Ld. Trial court had observed that the complainant and respondents are relatives and the complainant relied upon their representation in good faith and trust while investing the money. Ld. Trial court has further observed that the facts constituting the alleged crime and identity of proposed accused persons is well within the knowledge of the complainant. Making such an PURSHOTTAM Cr Rev/384/2024 PATHAK SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 11 of 14 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:32 +0530 observation and passing such an order was completely within the jurisdiction and power of Ld. MM.
17. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, 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."
18. 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 :
"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 Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 12 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:36 +0530 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."
19. All the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant 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.
20. 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 complainants option of police investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C are kept open.
21. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judgment of Lalita Kumari vs State of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1, to contend that FIR is mandatory if cognizable offence is found. I am however, of the view that the said judgment was primarily about the duty of police U/s 154 (3) Cr.P.C to be mandatory but the power given to Magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C is discretionary in nature. Further, there is no dispute as to legal preposition laid down in the other Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 13 of 14 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:40 +0530 judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist. However, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
22. 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.
23. The revision petition is disposed off.
24. TCR along with copy of this judgment be sent back to Ld. Trial Court.
25. Revision petition be consigned to record room after Digitally signed due compliance. by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.07.18 14:08:49 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 17th DAY OF JULY, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 14 signed pages) Cr Rev/384/2024 SMT.ARUNA RAI Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) AND ORS. Page 14 of 14