Delhi District Court
Bhanu Pratap vs Sanjay Jain And Ors on 25 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 325/2023
Bhanu Pratap
s/o Late Amarjeet Singh
r/o 110, street no.2, Bank
Colony, Mandoli, Delhi-93.
............... Revisionist.
Versus
1. Sanjay Jain
s/o K.C. Jain
r/o E-136, Gali no.5,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92.
Also at:
C-468, Sarswati Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-34.
2. Subhendu Das
s/o Dev Kumar Das
r/o H. No. 116, Gali no.3,
Tomar Colony, Burari,
Delhi-84.
3. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(Through Public Prosecutor).
............... Respondents
For Revisionist : Advocate Sh. Nitin.
For Respondent no.1 & 2 : Advocate Sh. Ashish Sisodia.
For Respondent no.3 : Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, revision preferred by the revisionist against the respondents shall be disposed of.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25
16:23:45 +0530
Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 1/16
2. By virtue of the present revision under Section 397 r/w 399 Cr. P.C., the order dated 26.09.2023, passed by Ld. MM (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi (hereinafter called "impugned order") has been assailed. By the impugned order, Ld. MM had dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC, filed by revisionist against the respondent no.1 and 2 (hereinafter also referred to 'respondents').
3. As per the relevant facts for adjudication of present revision, briefly stated, the allegations of the complainant are that in May 2018, the complainant was induced by the proposed accused Sanjay Jain and Subhendu Das for investing in their project titled "Bhavisya India City Plaza". The allegations of the complainant are that on 05.05.2018, the proposed accused visited the house of the complainant, within the territorial limits of Delhi, and informed him that they are constructing a commercial and housing complex situated at khata no. 6, khasra no. 60, measuring 1200 sq. yds. opposite Gaur City, Shaberi, Tehsil- Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar; that on the inducement of the proposed accused, the complainant booked a shop bearing unit no. FF- 207 in the said Project, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 21,30,000/-; that complainant has claimed that despite payment of Rs. 12,39,000/-, no shop was handed over to him and he later came to know in November, 2019 that the site of the Project was abandoned and the proposed accused had no title over the land on which the Project was being constructed; that proposed accused refused to return the money of the complainant. Thus, the proposed accused have VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:23:57 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 2/16 committed offences under Section 406/420/468/471/34/120B IPC; that complainant filed police complaint in this regard, whereby it was prayed that the police be directed to lodge an FIR and investigate the matter, however, no action was taken by the police; that thereafter complainant filed a complaint along with application u/s 156(3) Cr. PC in the court; that Status report was called by the trial court and after hearing arguments on the said application, same was dismissed by the court, however, the Ld. trial court had taken cognizance on the complaint u/s 200 Cr. PC with liberty to complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence; that being aggrieved by the said order passed by Ld. Trial court, the revisionist has filed the present revision against the impugned order dated 26.09.2023.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court is reproduced as under:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that field investigation is not required in the present case. The enquiry reveals that the proposed accused had a joint venture development agreement qua the land in question and it is not the case that they had no right or interest in the land whatsoever. The case is majorly based on documentary evidence, all of which is within the reach of the complainant. The identity of the proposed accused is well known to the complainant. No new facts are to be unearthed and the custodial interrogation of the accused is not needed. No field investigation is deemed necessary at this moment as the incident pertains to the year 2018. The recourse to Section 202 CrPC can be taken, if any need for police investigation arises, in future. "Digitally signed
VINEET by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:24:06 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 3/16
5. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the following grounds:
a) The Ld. Trial court failed to consider that from "ATR" it revealed, that the land belongs to a trust, "Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust" and a case is pending between the said trust and Greater Noida Development Authority. Hence, police enquiry is required to investigate about the-
objectives of the trust, whether said trust has objective to Build commercial complex.
valid registration certificate of trust list of office bearer(s) of Trust Enquiry on ownership proof and status of Land (pertaining to the relevant period 2018-2019) from concerned department, whether the said piece of land is free from all disputes & what is the subject matter regarding the said Land which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, between the land owner and Greater Noida Development Authority,
b) The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the police intervention is required to establish the veracity of the said Agreement of joint venture for development between the Respondent (R1 & R2) and Trust. The copy of same has been annexed herein as Annexure "E". Surprisingly, Ld. Trial Court remained silent on the substantial point of "Title" and surpass the same by observing in the impugned order that "...it is not the case that they had no right or interest in the land..." whereas this is a vital point to establish ( mens rea) the ill intention of accused since the beginning.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25
16:24:15 +0530
Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 4/16
c) The Ld. Trial court again failed to consider that deep Investigation is required to unearth the following essential facts of the partnership firm of Respondent 1 & 2 :
Total Number of Partners of the Firm, pertaining to the relevant time (2018-2019), as all the partners would be responsible for wrongdoing. Also, seizure of original Partnership Deed is required.
Current Legal Status of the Firm, Address, Bank Account Details & Statement, GST Details & Returns. Seizure of Firm Bank Account is required with statement of bank Account pertaining to the relevant time period i.e., 2018-2019
d) The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the requirement of Police Investigation, as the Respondent (1&2) have admitted only cheque Amount and denied the receipt of cash. Yet again, erroneously overlooked the essential and substantive issue of cash transactions. Thus, it is required to visit and investigate the office and residential premises of the Respondent no.1 & 2. moreover, police intervention is required to record the statements of employee(s) at the office of aforesaid Respondents regarding cash transactions.
Further seizure of relevant documents like ledger, receipts etc. is required to be done.
e) Police investigation is required to dig out the involvement of Respondent (R1 & R2) in similar Offences. As the Complainant/Petitioner herein itself has placed the copy of (2) FIRs registered against the proposed Accused persons after filing of application u/s 156(3) Cr. PC before the Ld. VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:24:23 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 5/16 Trial Court to show the conduct of Respondent(1&2) that they are habitual offenders. The same are annexed herein as- Annexure "F". Even the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the matter of - Central Bureau of Investigation VS Jagjit Singh, Crl Appeal No. 1580 of 2013; as "para 15 ... offences under Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well-being of the society. These offences fall under category of offences involving moral turpitude" the same has been annexed herein as- Annexure "G".
f) That it is necessary to register the FIR and put the Respondent no.1 &2 behind the bars to break the economic offence nexus created and driven by the aforesaid Respondent no.1&2 as it affects state's economic well-being.
g) That it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent (1&2) have filed a false and vexatious complaint against the brother of Complainant (who is an Advocate), to pressurize the Complainant. Then on the basis of said complaint the Respondents herein preferred a transfer petition for the main case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the same got disposed of and transfer did not take place. Once more, this incident establishes the intention of Respondent (1&2) to hamper the Trial Court proceedings. The copy of Final Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court with copy of ATR and Complaint is annexed herein as - Annexure H
h) That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the revisionist herein prays from this Hon'ble Court to kindly set Aside the order of the Ld. Trial Court passed on dated:
26/09/2023 and further prays to pass an Order for the VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:24:31 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 6/16 +0530 registration of FIR against the Respondent No.1 &2 as the material & substantive evidences are yet to be seized and record ed to establish a strong case. Moreover, the aforesaid materials cannot be obtained by the Complainant itself. Therefore, field investigation through police is required.
i) That there is strong possibility that the Respondent no.1 & 2 may tamper/pressurize the potential evidences & witness (es) or may easily flee when law will take its course against the aforesaid Respondents.
6. Aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials, revisionist filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr. PC along with the application u/s 156(3) Cr. PC. As stated above, the said application was dismissed and from the order of dismissal, the present revision has been preferred.
7. I have heard arguments on behalf of both sides and perused TCR as well as other material placed on record. Arguments on behalf of respondent no.3/State were not heard, as it is not a necessary party in the present matter.
8. Pertinently, an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC was dismissed, however, Ld. trial court has taken cognizance on the complaint u/s 200 Cr. PC and granted him liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his case.
9. Before proceeding further, it is essential to refer to the relevant provisions, from which this court derives its power of revision and the same reads as under:
"Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:24:43 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 7/16 its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Section 399 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
399. Sessions Judge' s powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub- section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub- section (1), the provisions of sub- sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub- sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of a person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by Way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court."
Digitally signedVINEET by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:24:52 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 8/16
10. It was held in the matter of Taron Mohan Vs. State and Anr. 2021 SCC Online Del. 312 that:
"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."
11. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ram Rao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulab Rao Phalke and ors. 2015 (3) SCC 123 has observed as under:
"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."
12. The only point of determination before this Court while dealing with the present revision is as to whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness and for the said purpose, first of all, it needs to be ascertained as to whether Ld. trial court was correct in holding that investigation by police is not required in the VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET present matter.
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:25:01
+0530
Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 9/16
13. In the case in hand, as per the allegations levelled by the revisionist, respondents had no title over the property in question and they duped the complainant/revisionist by promising construction of shops over a piece of land not owned by them. Further, allegations upon the respondents are that they are habitual offenders, as they have duped multiple persons in the same manner, for which other FIRs have also been registered against them.
14. Pertinently, perusal of Action Taken Report filed before the Ld. trial court reveals that revisionist/complainant had stated that he was pitched by the agents (proposed accused persons) of project named Bhavishya India City Plaza, who introduced themselves as partners of the said project having their office at Noida. He has further stated that they further informed him that they were constructing commercial complex & Housing complex at Khata no.6, Khasra no. 60, measuring 1200 sq. yards approx., opposite Gaur City, Shahberi, Noida. It is further stated that they also assured that title/ownership of aforesaid land belonged to them, wherein they were offering shops for sale. It is further stated that both respondents successfully convinced the complainant to book a shop at their said project as unit no. FF-207 for an amount of Rs.21,30,000/-. It is further stated that complainant had paid total amount of Rs.12,39,000/- as booking amount and four slips were issued by respondents in this regard. It is further stated that in the month of November 2019, when complainant approached the respondents to know about the progress in construction of aforesaid VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:25:11 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 10/16 premises, he was surprised to see that no one was there and said premises was lying abandoned and when complainant enquired about the same, he came to know respondents had cheated a number of persons in the name of the aforesaid commercial & Housing complex. It is further stated that complainant further came to know that respondents do not have any title/ownership of aforesaid land and when he tried to meet the respondent, he could not succeed. Thereafter, complainant made several police complaints, but no action was taken by them. As a result, complainant filed application u/s 156(3) Cr. PC before the Ld. trial court, which was dismissed vide impugned order and opportunity for leading pre-summoning evidence was granted to him.
15. Pertinently, as per ATR, respondents were made to join the enquiry, whereby they filed a written reply stating that complainant had booked a property in their project and admittedly paid an amount of Rs.6,39,000/- in installments to M/s Bhavishya India. It has been further mentioned therein that UP government had stayed their project and ownership of the land in question was in the name of Arsh Sahitya Trust, with whom an agreement of joint venture for development was executed between President of the Trust and Partners of M/s Bhavishya India. It has been further stated that on 16.06.2023 said Dharam Pal, President of the Trust joined the enquiry and produced copy of Fard regarding the property in question. He further stated that property in question is registered in the name of Arsh Sahitya Trust and he had executed an agreement of joint VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:25:19 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 11/16 venture for development with Bhavishya India through respondents and gave possession of property in question to them. He has further stated that there is a case regarding property in question pending before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, UP, due to which construction work at the said property was stopped.
16. Now adverting to the aspect whether the Ld. trial court correctly held vide the impugned order that investigation by police was not required, it is worthwhile to mention that at the stage of consideration of application u/s 156(3) Cr. PC, court is not expected to make a roving enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of version of the complainant in respect of alleged incident.
17. It is pertinent to mention that vide the impugned order, Ld. trial court has observed that field investigation is not required in the present case and also that enquiry reveals that proposed accused had entered into a joint venture development agreement qua the land in question and it is not the case that they had no right or interest in the land whatsoever. It was further observed in the said order that primarily the case is based on documentary evidence, all of which, is within the reach of complainant/revisionist and identity of proposed accused persons is well known to him and as no new facts are to be unearthed, thus custodial interrogation of accused is not needed and finally it was held that in case assistance of police is required, then recourse to Section 202 Cr. PC can be taken.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:25:26 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 12/16
18. However, in the opinion of this court, the Ld. trial court by holding as aforesaid, has erred considering the facts and circumstances of the present matter. First of all, perusal of the Allotment-cum-shop buyer agreement executed between the parties on 24.08.2018 clearly reveals that it has been mentioned under the head- DEVELOPERS' REPRESENTATIONS that M/s Bhavishya India, which is a partnership firm with respondents as partners, has acquired right, title and interest in the land in question. Further, the said agreement does not mention anywhere that ownership of the said land belongs to Arsh Sahitya Trust or that it has allegedly entered into a joint venture agreement for development with the respondents. Furthermore, it was neither disclosed anywhere in the said agreement nor it was ever brought to the knowledge of revisionist that a case regarding the said property in question with Greater Noida Authority is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. In addition to this, respondents never communicated the stopping of construction work at the property in question to the revisionist, who otherwise was under the impression that construction work was going normally at the said place. Most importantly, a copy of notice dated 21.07.18 issued on behalf of Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has been placed on record by the Enquiry Officer along with Supplementary ATR, which was handed over to him by one of the respondents/ proposed accused Sanjay Jain and the same clearly directs the Bhavishya India Group to stop Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:25:36 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 13/16 unauthorized construction on property in question as the same falls within the area notified by it. Pertinently, the said notice was received more than one month prior to the date when Allotment-cum-shop buyer agreement was executed between the parties on 24.08.2018, however, the aforesaid fact along with the fact that there has been a pending litigation with respect to the property in question are conspicuous by their absence from the aforesaid agreement, which clearly shows that revisionist was kept in the dark and the said omission seems to be indicative of intention on behalf of respondents to deceive revisionist since inception.
19. Suffice it to state that allegations levelled against the respondents in the case in hand as well as material available on record including the ATR, seems to reveal the commission of cognizable offences. Further, once cognizable offence is disclosed in an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., then factors to the contrary i.e. malafide, un-neutrality and improbability relegates into the background and the same cannot be taken recourse for refusing to register the FIR by the Court. Thus, it may well be stated that refusal to direct registration of FIR in cognizable offences flout the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of UP and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524, wherein it was settled that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:25:42 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 14/16
20. Further, another reason on the basis of which generally registration of FIR is refused by the courts, as has been done in the impugned order, is that possession of all or relevant evidence is with the complainant, however, even that is not the case herein as looking at the facts and circumstances of the present matter, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entire evidence is in possession of the revisionist / complainant, as many aspects in the present matter viz. identity and number of all partners/ proposed accused persons, true ownership of property in question, whether documents pertaining to said property are forged or not etc. are to be ascertained among other things and the same can only be done by the investigating agency, more so, as all this information to be obtained is beyond the capacity of revisionist especially when it is to be obtained from persons, who are indulged in business as Builders/ Developers. Also, custodial interrogation of respondents, may be required in this regard, which cannot possibly be done by taking recourse to Section 202 Cr. PC.
21. In addition to the above, copies of two FIRs pertaining to cases of similar nature pending in the State of UP against the respondents no.1 and 2 along with other persons have been placed on record, perusal of which seem to indicate that respondent no.1 and 2 are habitually involved in cases such as the present matter. Thus, suffice it to state that considering the facts and circumstances in totality, registration of FIR is necessitated to unearth true sequence of events surrounding the present matter.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 16:26:00
+0530
Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 15/16
22. Accordingly, in view of above discussion as well as considering the facts and circumstances in totality, the present revision is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by Ld. MM (Shahdara) is hereby set aside. Resultantly, SHO concerned is directed to register an FIR within a week from the date of this order under appropriate provisions without fail and he is further directed to get this matter investigated thoroughly and file a report in accordance with law. A compliance report be also filed by or on behalf of SHO concerned, upon registration of FIR before the concerned court.
Revision file be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back to the court concerned with one copy of this order for information.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25
16:26:12 +0530
Announced in the open (Vineet Kumar)
Court on 25.04.2025 ASJ-02/E-COURT
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 325/2023 Bhanu Pratap Vs. Sanjay Jain and ors. Page no. 16/16