Delhi District Court
Irshad vs State And Ors on 14 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-000651-2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 33/2026
MR. IRSHAD,
S/o. Late Shri. Hazi Ali Jang,
R/o. Kh. No. 524/75,
Burari Garhi,
Delhi-110084. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI).
2. SHRI. KRISHAN TYAGI,
S/o. Shri. Ram Dutt Tyagi,
R/o. H. No. 652 Landa Pada,
Near Patwar Ghar,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
3. SHRI. RAHUL @ NISHU,
S/o. Krishan Tyagi,
R/o. H. No. 652 Landa Pada,
Near Patwar Ghar,
Burari, Delhi-110084. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of e-filing : 13.01.2026
Date of Institution : 14.01.2026
Date when judgment was reserved : 24.04.2026
Date when judgment is pronounced : 14.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS')/pari materia with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-09/Ld. CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 1 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:00:15 +0530 JMFC-09, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing, 'Irshad v. Krishna Tyagi, Ct. Case No. 113/2025', PS. Burari. Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application, preferred by the revisionist, namely, Mr. Irshad (hereinafter referred to as the 'revisionist') in terms of the provisions under Section 175(3) BNSS/pari materia with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though, listing the matter for Pre- Summoning Evidence/PSE.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings is a complaint, filed by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court, in terms of the provisions under Section 223 BNSS/pari materia with Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offences under Sections 316(2)1, 318(4)2, 351(2)3/(3)4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNS') read with Section 3(5)5 BNS. Pertinently, under his complaint, the revisionist inter alia proclaimed that respondent no. 2 along with Smt. Savita, W/o. Shri. Pramod Kumar; Shri. Pradeep Tyagi S/o. Late Shri. Parmod Tyagi; and Shri. Ishwar Chand Tyagi (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'owners'), were all joint owners in undivided share in land, admeasuring 1,000 sq. yds. of khasra no. 76/6/2, situated in the area of village Burari Abadi known as Satya Vihar, Delhi-110084 (hereinafter referred to as the 'plot/property/premise'). As per the revisionist, the said owners, all agreed to sell their respective 1 Pari materia with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860/IPC.
2Pari materia with Section 420 IPC.
3Pari materia with Section 503 IPC 4 Pari materia with Section 506 IPC 5 Pari materia with Section 34 IPC CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 2 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:00:32 +0530 shares in the property to the revisionist against sale consideration of Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand only) per sq. yds. Consequently, an agreement to sell, dated 29.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agreement/Agreement to Sell') is stated to have been executed between the revisionist and the said owners and the said owners are avowed to have received earnest money of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) from the revisionist. It is further the case of the revisionist that respondent no. 2, in particular, received a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) from the revisionist against acknowledgment. As per the revisionist, it was agreed between the revisionist and the owners that the documents of sale of the property would be executed on or before 15.07.2021. 2.1. Markedly, it is further chronicled under the revisionist's complaint/application that he made arrangements for the funds and requested the owners to execute the sale deed in his favour. However, as per the revisionist, he was assured by the owners that they were in the process of clearing all dues/encumbrances against the property, whereupon the sale deed would be executed in favour of the revisionist. Correspondingly, it was avowed by the revisionist under his complaint/application that in the meanwhile, all owners, except respondent no. 2, executed, sale documents, i.e., General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will, Possession Letter, Affidavit, etc., of their respective shares, in favour of the revisionist. Subsequently, respondent nos. 2-3 are asserted to have requested the revisionist to make some part-payment to meet his need. Consequently, as per the revisionist, considering their past relationship and the assurances of respondent nos. 2-3, CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 3 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:00:38 +0530 the revisionist is proclaimed to have made, following payments to the said respondents;
Sr. No. AMOUNT (in INR) DATE
1. Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash 25.02.2021
2. Rs. 3,00,000/- through cheque 07.03.2021
3. Rs. 50,000/- through cheque 07.03.2021
4. Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash 06.05.2021
5. Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash 02.11.2021
6. Rs. 3,00,000/- through cheque 08.02.2022
2.2. Pertinently, in his complaint/application, the
revisionist inter alia further proclaimed that respondent no. 2, received a total sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs only), i.e., a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) as earnest money and as sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), as part payment, from the revisionist. However, as per the revisionist, despite assurances of respondent nos. 2-3 that their property/share in property would be transferred to the revisionist and the relevant documents be executed in his/revisionist's favour, respondent nos. 2-3 persevered to delay execution of such documents/transfer of their shares in property, on one or the other pretext. It was further avowed by the revisionist under his complaint/application that on 19.09.2023, at around 06:00 p.m., he along with his close relative also visited the premise of respondent nos. 2-3, entreating execution of documents/sale deed in respect of the property, however, to no avail. On the contrary, as per the revisionist, respondent nos. 2-3 started abusing and threatening the revisionist of dire consequences, including sale of the property to a third person(s). It is further the case of the revisionist that CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:00:43 +0530 considering utter non-compliance of their obligations, the revisionist issued/got issued legal notice dated 21.09.2023 to respondent no. 2 through his legal counsel. However, despite the same, as per the revisionist, respondent nos. 2-3 neither replied to the said notice nor execute the documents of sale of the property/their shares in property, as per the agreed terms. 2.3. Ergo, under aforenoted facts and circumstances, the revisionist is asserted to have approached the concerned police officials against the alleged acts of respondent nos. 2-3 in not executing the sale deed in favour of the revisionist, committing criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation. However, as per the revisionist, no FIR was registered on his/revisionist's complaint. Congruently, the revisionist is also asserted to have issued repeated reminders to the police officials, however, to no avail. It is further asserted on behalf of the revisionist that considering the utter inaction on the part of the concerned police officials, despite the demonstration of commission of several cognizable offences, the revisionist moved the Ld. Trial Court by means of the aforenoted complaint under Section 223BNSS/Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application/entreaty for registration of FIR, in terms of the provisions under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Relevantly, the Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2025, directed the concerned police official/SHO to file of action taken report/ATR/status report on the complaint filed by/on behalf of the revisionist inter alia under the following observations;
"***Heard. Perused.
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 5 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14
16:00:49 +0530
Before any orders are passed on the present application, the court deems it fit to call for an action taken report from the concerned PS. Accordingly, let court notice be issued to the SHO concerned to file ATR be called for NDOH. Let copy of the present complaint be sent along with court notice.
Re-list for further proceedings on ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Consequently, in compliance of the aforesaid directions of the Ld. Trial Court, Status Report came to be filed by/on behalf of the concerned SHO before the Ld. Trial Court on 05.05.2025, inter alia, noting, as under;
"*** The complainant alleged that Krishan Tyagi is the joint owner of undivided share of land area measuring 1000 Sq. Yards out of Kh. 76/6/2 situated in the area of Village Burari, Delhi known as Satya Vihar, Burari, Delhi with Smt Savita W/o Lt. Pramod Tyagi, Pradeep Tyagi S/o Lt Pramod Tyagi and Ishwar Chand Tyagi. All the above owners of the said property agreed to sell their respective shares @ 21,000/- per sq yards and executed an Agreement to Sell Dt. 29/10/2020 with the complainant and received a sum of Rs.
40,00,000/- from him out of which, alleged Krishan Tyagi received a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- as his share. After acknowledgement of the above Rs. 13,00,000/-. Krishan Tyagi signed Agreement with undertaking that the sale documents of the property/land should be executed on or before 15/07/2021.
The complainant made arrangement of the fund and requested alleged persons to made clear all the dues in respect of the land in question. Then Krishan Tyagi including others requested to clear the land under sale and as and when the land would be clear from all the consequences, they would informed accordingly.
During this period, other owners namely Smt. Savita W/o Lt. Pramod Tyagi, Pradeep Tyagi S/o Lt Pramod Tyagi and Ishwar Chand Tyagi executed affidavit in his favour. Krishan Tyagi and his son Rahul Tyagi asked him to make the sale documents ie. GPA. Agreement to Sell. Receipt, will, Possession Letter. some part payments to meet his needs and the complainant agreed to pay the same and accordingly CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 6 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:00:53 +0530 the complainant made further payment of total Rs. 18,00,000/- to the alleged persons on different dates in instalments. On 19/09/2023, when the complainant visited the address of the alleged Krishan Tyagi and asked them to execute the property documents in his favour, he was threatened for dire consequences.
During the course of enquiry, the complainant was joined in the enquiry who stated that he had paid Rs. 31,00,000/- to the alleged person Krishan Tyagi and his son Rahul Tyagi, but till date they neither executed the property documents in his favour nor return the paid amount to him and cheated him.
Krishan Tyagi was contacted telephonically and he was asked to join the enquiry, but he behaved rudely and refused to join the enquiry. Thereafter, Notices were served to both Krishan Tyagi and his son Rahul Tyagi to join the enquiry. But only Rahul Tyagi come to join the enquiry. He was asked to produce relevant documents and to submit their replies regarding the complaint of Irshad against them, but till date none of the alleged persons had produced any relevant documents nor submitted their replies. Both the alleged persons are not co-operating in the enquiry.
During enquiry, it came out that the alleged person Krishan Tyagi and his son Rahul Tyagi had taken Rs. 31,00,000/- from the complainant, but till date they neither executed property documents in favour of the complainant nor return the paid amount to him. Report is submitted for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. However, the undersigned is ready to abide by any direction passed by this Hon'ble Court.***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.5. Subsequently, upon the arguments being addressed by/on behalf of the revisionist as well as on consideration of the action taken report(s)/status report(s), the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 175(3) BNSS vide its order dated 08.12.2025/impugned order inter alia under the following observations;
"*** 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the allegations made in the complaint, the CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 7 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:00:56 +0530 submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the status report filed by the IO.
6. Before proceeding any further, it is relevant to note the settled law and the guidelines that are to weigh in the mind of the court while deciding any application u/s 156 Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is important to note the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shri Subhkaran Luharuka and Anr. v. State and Anr. (2010) 170 DLT 516:*** *** *** ***
8. In view of the settled law and from a careful scrutiny of the record. the court is of the considered opinion that the facts as disclosed by the complainant do not inspire the confidence of the court and it appears that the complainant is trying to give criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil in nature nature. Furthermore, on the basis of the record available, it appears that all the facts constituting the alleged offence, including the names and whereabouts of the proposed accused persons, are well within the knowledge and the reach of the complainant. There does not appear any requirement of any scientific or technical investigation in the matter as the nature of the matter is not complex. There is no requirement of collection of evidence by the investigating agency as the necessary and cogent evidence are either in the reach of the complainant or can be summoned, through the court.
*** *** ***
10. In view of the observations hereinabove and keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances, the court does not deem it fit to invoke its discretionary power vested under section 175(3) BNSS. The court is of the considered opinion that the complainant is required to prima facie establish the allegations by leading pre summoning evidence u/s 223 BNSS. Accordingly, the relief claimed u/s 175(3) BNSS is declined. If at all there shall be any need for investigation, then the provisions u/s 225 BNSS may be resorted to.
11. In view of the above, the present application u/s 175(3) BNSS is hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any observations upon the merits of the case ***"
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 8 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:01:00 +0530 impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled cannons of law, deserving to be set aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere assumptions and that no sound and/or cogent reasons have been delineated under the said order. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate the full facts of the present case and passed the impugned order, imaginatively, ignoring the material facts. As per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court erred in dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 175(3) BNSS, without passing a speaking order and without considering prima facie, the offences committed by respondent nos. 2-3 in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further vehemently contended that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the allegations under the revisionist's complaint/application disclose serious cognizable offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, etc., which cannot be relegated to the realm of a civil dispute. Congruently, it was submitted that the acts complained of, involve cheating the revisionist of his hard earn money to a tune of Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs only); as well as of committing criminal breach of trust and criminally intimidating/threatening the revisionist, while acting in collusion/connivance with each other, bringing the same within the ambit of criminal offences under BNS, necessitating immediate police intervention/investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS.
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 9 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2026.05.14
16:01:04
+0530
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court further erred in not considering that the police officials, instead of investigating the allegations of the revisionist, merely dismissed the same, erroneously terming it as a 'mere civil dispute'. As per the Ld. Counsel, such abdication of statutory duty under, deprived the revisionist of his rightful claim as well as entitlement to seek fair investigation. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court further erred in not appreciating that under similar set of facts, both, civil and criminal remedy/recourse can be adopted by a victim/complainant. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent nos. 2- 3, with malafide intention, induced delivery of money/consideration by the revisionist, which was subsequently, misappropriated/illegally converted to their own use by the said respondents/accused persons. Ergo, it was argued that the said sequence of events, quite lucidly demonstrate deliberate misuse of judicial process and a criminal designs of respondent nos. 2-3, to deprive the revisionist of his rightful claims to the property in question, besides subjecting him to threat of dire consequences. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order, arbitrarily, in a biased manner and in utter non-application of judicial mind, entitling the same to be set aside outrightly.
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that while passing the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist was a victim in the hands of respondent nos. 2-3, where not only was his/revisionist's right to the property wrongfully withheld, rather, the revisionist was also CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 10 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:01:08 +0530 subjected to mental harassment. However, despite the same, as per the Ld. Counsel, no FIR has been registered till date. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to recognize the basic principle and purpose of registration/lodging of FIR. In this regard, Ld. Counsel fervently argued that it is settled law that when an offence/crime is opined/determined to be cognizable in nature, FIR ought to be registered. As per the Ld. Counsel, registration of FIR is the incipient stage of invocation of criminal machinery, setting the criminal justice system in motion and enabling the police to look in the situation. However, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 175(3) BNSS vide the impugned order on patently erroneous observations. In this regard, it was reiterated that it is a legal requirement to register/lodge FIR when a person provides information about the commission of cognizable offence. Ld. Counsel further vehemently asserted that only the police machinery is equipped to conduct a thorough inquiry/investigation in the instant case. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the revisionist in his individual capacity, does not have the means to investigate, dig out, search and seize the material and evidence in the instant case, necessary to unearth the real truth in the instant case. Ld. Counsel further reiterated in this regard that it is only the fair police officials/authorities, who can unearth the truth as well as collect the evidence of such a nature, which fact was not considered by the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order.
3.3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that Ld. Trial Court erred in not properly appreciating the necessity of CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 11 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:01:11 +0530 uncovering numerous critical factors during the investigation. Ld. Counsel further strenuously reiterated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to recognize the inevitability of custodial interrogation of respondent nos. 2-3, which is crucial for the recovery of the evidence and statement. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the ATR, filed by the police officials before the Ld. Trial Court was completely silent with respect to the investigation conducted on the revisionist's complaint, besides the report demonstrates that the respondent nos. 2-3, blatantly refused to cooperate in any enquiry. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court fell in grave error in not appreciating the basic tenets of law that a person is constrained to approach the Magistrate/Ld. Trial Court through an application under Section 175(3) BNSS only on the failure/refusal of the police official to entertain a criminal complaint. Ergo, Ld. Counsel reiterated with vehemence that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in violation of facts as well as law. Consequently, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist entreated that the impugned order, being passed in gross violation of law and settled judicial precedents, deserves to be set aside, outrightly and directions be issued for registration of FIR as well as consequent, investigation. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar, 2026 SCC Online SC 50; Amit Khera v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (4) CC Cases 68 (HC); and Radha v. State, 2011 (2) JCC 1414.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and, as such, deserves no interference by this CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 12 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:01:16 +0530 Court. It was further submitted that no irregularity, impropriety, or incorrectness can be attributed to the impugned order, which was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, cognizant of the principles of law, as well as wary of the facts and circumstances brought forth. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State entreated that the instant petition be dismissed as amounting to gross abuse of process of law.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 have been heard as well as the records, including the Ld. Trial Court records as well as the case laws, relied upon by the revisionist have been thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the present case, this Court deems it apposite to outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law/Section 438 BNSS6, as under;
"438. 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 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 his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
*** *** *** 6 Pari materia provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which provides, "397. Calling for records to exercise of 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 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..." (Emphasis supplied) CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 13 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:01:20 +0530 (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...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of parties, that too in a case(s) where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (pari materia with Section 438 of BNSS), observed as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Comparably, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 14 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:01:25 +0530 V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC Online Del 1192, in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it 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. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law7 that trite law that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner." Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC Online Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded 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 7 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 958.
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 15 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14
16:01:29 +0530
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Notably in the context of the foregoing, it is further apposite to observe the settled law8 that in the case where the criminal complaint, filed before the Magistrate, discloses commission of a cognizable offence upon scrutiny, two courses are open to the Magistrate. Under such circumstance, such magistrate may opt to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C./Section 210 BNSS and proceed to inquire into it in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sections 223/225 BNSS (pari materia with Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C.). In the alternate, such magistrate may refer the complaint to police under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, wherein magistrate would stay his hand till report under Section 173 Cr.P.C./Section 193 BNSS is submitted by the police, on which further process of law would follow. Reference in this regard, is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Qamar Jahan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2014 SCC Online Del 3745, wherein the Hon'ble Court remarked in the context of the foregoing as under;
"8. It is a well settled law that when criminal complaint is filed before the Magistrate and upon perusal it is found that it discloses a cognizable offence having been committed, two courses are open to the Magistrate. He may chose to inquire into the complaint by taking cognizance in exercise 8 Satyamuni Verma v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Ors., MANU/DE/0704/2014.
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 16 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14
16:01:33 +0530
of his powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and proceed to inquire into it in accordance with the procedure laid down in sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In the alternative, he may refer the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. In the latter case, the Magistrate, having given such direction would stay his hand till report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is submitted by the police, on which further process of law would follow.
9. The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set in motion on mere asking of a party. There has to be some substance in the complaint filed and it is only if it appears that the allegations are serious enough and establish the commission of cognizable offence required thorough investigation by the police, an FIR should be ordered to be registered.
10. In case Gulab Chand Upadhyay v. State of U.P., (2002) Crl.L.J. 2907, it was held that the use of the word "may" in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in contra distinction to the word "shall" in Section 154 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse registration of FIR..."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Correspondingly, earlier the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 SCC Online Del 448, explicated the law in respect of the provisions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the following terms;
"7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in to held the complainant.
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 17 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14
16:01:39 +0530
The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 20001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled "Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Here, this Court deems it apposite to further refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anjuri Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC Online Del 7570, wherein the Hon'ble Court reiterated that the directions for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (pari materia with Section 175(3) BNSS) cannot be given by the Magistrate mechanically, rather, only on application of mind. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Subhkaran Luharuka v. State, 2010 SCC Online Del 2324, catalogued the guiding principles and procedure to be followed while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., remarking as under;
"52. ...For the guidance of subordinate courts, the procedure to be followed while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is summarized as under:
(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the Complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the Complainant. It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the Police, when approached by the Complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code.
(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the Complaint which can CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 18 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:01:43 +0530 be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the Police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the Order passed by him.
Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing final orders.
(iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code, should invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the Complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report under Section 202 of the Code.
(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the Complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Quite recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander, 2023 SCC Online Del 4213, summarized and reiterated the principles governing CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 19 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:01:47 +0530 invocation/exercise of power/discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as under;
"40. To summarise, a conspectus of the above- mentioned judicial precedents reveal the following:
(i) Power under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. 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.
(iv) Necessity to pass Speaking Order.
41. Given that the exercise of power under Section 156 Cr.P.C. falls within the realm of judicial function rather than administrative, it necessitates the application of judicial mind. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order directing registration of an FIR..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Clearly, it is observed from above the exercise of discretion under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. entails adoption of a cautionary approach9, with the magistrate being duty bound to pass a reasoned order, while directing registration of FIR. As aforenoted, registration of FIR cannot be directed on mere asking of complainant. On the contrary, it is only where there is substance in the complaint filed and when it appears that the allegation made therein, establish the commission of cognizable offence, requiring thorough investigation by the police, only then FIR can be ordered to be registered. Ergo, under such circumstance(s), Magistrate is required to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case and exercise the discretion judiciously, not being unmindful of attempts to obtain such drastic orders on bald allegations and 9 Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, (2023) 14 SCC 1.
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 20 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2026.05.14
16:01:51
+0530
concocted stories for ulterior motives.
15. Germane for the purposes of present discourse as well as to comprehensively deal with the issue at hand to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa, 2017 SCC Online Del 6444, wherein the Hon'ble Court noted in unambiguous terms that an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175(3) BNSS) is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable. Relevant extract(s) of the said decision are reproduced as under;
"13. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Consequently, in conspectus of above, further being wary of the aforenoted judicial principles, in light of the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this Court observes that from the CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 21 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:01:56 +0530 facts and circumstances of the case, material and the documents placed on record of this Court and the Ld. Trial Court, including inter alia the contents of the revisionist's complaint/application with an entreaty seeking registration of FIR and police investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, action taken report/status report filed by/on behalf of the concerned SHO, and other documents placed on record, this Court is in concurrence with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that there is no requirement for invocation of the provisions under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and/or for issuance of any direction for registration of FIR in the instant case. Needless to reiterate the identity of the accused/respondent nos. 2-3 is already known to the revisionist; facts and allegations levelled against respondent nos. 2-3 are already within the knowledge of the revisionist, not requiring unearthing of any facts by means of police investigation; evidence and material of the alleged occurrence are well within the reach of the revisionist; and even the custodial interrogation of the accused persons/respondent nos. 2 and 3, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not required at the present case at this stage. Needless to mention that despite repeated inquiries from this Court, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, no facts have been disclosed on which investigation is entreated in the present case, except to the extent that the FIR ought to be registered in the instant case considering the alleged cognizable offences committed by the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-3, which, as aforenoted is not mandated under all circumstances. Apposite in the context of the foregoing to further note that the Ld. Trial Court has not dismissed the revisionist's complaint in its entirety. On the CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 22 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:02:00 +0530 contrary, as aforenoted, by means of impugned order, Ld. Trial Court merely dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 175(3) BNSS, while listing the matter for pre-
summoning evidence. Accordingly, the revisionist is within his right to make out the case by leading pre-summoning evidence, with resort to the provisions under Section 202 Cr.P.C./Section 225 BNSS qua disputed facts at necessary stage, if so required.
17. Consequently, being circumspect of the facts and circumstances as well as the judicial dictates and arguments hereunder noted, registration of FIR at this stage in the present case, would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be against all canons of justice. Needless to reiterate that the Ld. Trial Court by impugned order, merely dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., while fixing the matter for pre-summoning evidence and in case the revisionist has a case, he can make it out by leading pre- summoning evidence.
18. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unswervingly records and reiterates that the Ld. Trial Court did not commit any illegality and/or impropriety under the impugned order, while dismissing the revisionist's entreaty for registration of FIR and consequent police investigation under his application under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in light of the facts and circumstances, arguments addressed, documents and the material placed on record, as well as judicial dictates. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. As a corollary, order dated 08.12.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC-09, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 23 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:02:05 +0530 bearing, 'Irshad v. Krishna Tyagi, Ct. Case No. 113/2025', PS. Burari, dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and while listing the matter for pre-summoning evidence on the revisionist's complaint is hereby upheld/affirmed. Apposite at this stage for this Court to further note that, though, it/this Court holds highest regard for the decisions relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, however, the same would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, come to the aid/rescue of the case put forth by the revisionist in the manner as prayed for, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly, distinguishable.
19. Trial Court Record along with a copy of this order/judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court concerned for record and information purpose(s).
20. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.14 16:02:10 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 14.05.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 24 of 24