Delhi District Court
Shabana vs State on 7 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-006060-2024
DLSE010060602024
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 304 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHABANA,
D/o. Bashir Ahmed,
R/o. H.No. 206, DDA Flats,
Badarpur, New Delhi .......Revisionist
Versus
1) STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through SHO, Badarpur, New Delhi,
2) Rajender Meena, PS Badarpur,
3) SI Rajiv Kumar, PS Badarpur,
4) SHO : Inspector Ajay Kumar (Now ACP) ........Respondents
Instituted on : 06.06.2024
Reserved on : 23.12.2025
Pronounced on : 07.01.2026
CR No. 304/2024 Shabana Vs. State Page No. 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision petition under Sections 397/399 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Ld. ACMM (South-East), Saket Courts, whereby the application moved by the revisionist seeking registration of FIR against police officials for the offence punishable under Section 166A IPC was dismissed.
2. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have carefully perused the trial court record. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to address arguments.
3. The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, reveals that the revisionist had initially approached the court alleging that she had been cheated by one Henry Carter, who had contacted her through a matrimonial portal and induced her to transfer money on false assurances.
4. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, on which the then Ld. Magistrate, vide order dated 03.04.2018, issued certain directions to the IO to trace the bank account in which the money was credited and to try and preserve the same to the extent possible. It is an admitted position that the said order was passed prior to registration of FIR.
5. FIR No. 68/2020 under Sections 420/34 IPC was eventually registered at PS Badarpur. During subsequent proceedings, the revisionist raised grievance regarding alleged non-compliance of the order dated CR No. 304/2024 Shabana Vs. State Page No. 2 of 6 03.04.2018 and sought registration of FIR against concerned police officials under Section 166A IPC.
6. The Ld. ACMM, after a detailed examination of the entire record, declined the said prayer vide the impugned order, while simultaneously issuing directions for expeditious completion of investigation and supervisory oversight by senior police officers.
7. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the grounds that:
(i) the directions dated 03.04.2018 were deliberately disobeyed;
(ii) the IO initially gave misleading impressions regarding seizure of accounts;
(iii) acknowledgment of investigative lapses itself attracts Section 166A IPC; and
(iv) the Ld. Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in law.
8. Before examining the merits, it is necessary to reiterate the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held that interference in revision is warranted only where the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or gross miscarriage of justice, and that where two views are possible, the revisional court should not substitute its own view.
9. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, in considered view of this Court, the impugned order does not disclose any jurisdictional error or CR No. 304/2024 Shabana Vs. State Page No. 3 of 6 perversity warranting interference.
10. A careful reading of the order dated 03.04.2018 shows that the same was passed at a pre-FIR, pre-cognizance stage, while considering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The directions were facilitative and preventive in nature, intended to safeguard the interest of the complainant at a nascent stage.
11. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that such directions cannot be equated with binding mandates issued during a full-fledged investigation based on crystallized evidence.
12. Section 166A IPC is a penal provision which requires prima facie conscious and willful disobedience of a direction of law. Mere delay, error of judgment or procedural lapse does not attract criminal liability. In the present case, the Ld. Magistrate has correctly concluded that the material on record does not disclose mens rea or contumacious defiance, and at best points towards alleged deficiencies in investigation.
13. It is a settled principle that defective or delayed investigation, by itself, does not justify criminal prosecution of the investigating officer. Further, in my considered view, there is a clear distinction between an irregular investigation and a malicious investigation and only the latter may invite criminal consequences.
14. It is evident that the impugned order reflects a correct appreciation of this distinction. Another significant aspect noted by the Ld. CR No. 304/2024 Shabana Vs. State Page No. 4 of 6 Magistrate is the absence of prior sanction. The Supreme Court in 'Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 705', has held in unequivocal terms that a Magistrate cannot direct investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without prior sanction, even at the pre-cognizance stage. Admittedly, no sanction was either obtained or even sought by the revisionist. The application was, therefore, legally untenable.
15. It is settled law that criminal law cannot be set into motion mechanically and that courts must guard against its misuse as a tool of harassment. The impugned order reflects such judicial restraint, while at the same time ensuring accountability by issuing directions for expeditious investigation and supervisory monitoring.
16. On an overall conspectus of facts and law, this Court finds that:
• The impugned order is a reasoned and well-considered order; • The ingredients of Section 166A IPC are not prima facie made out;
• Mandatory sanction is absent; and • No perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.
17. The revision petition appears to be an attempt to convert alleged investigative lapses into criminal prosecution, which is impermissible in law.
CR No. 304/2024 Shabana Vs. State Page No. 5 of 6
18. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
19. Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
20. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Anuj Agrawal)
court on 07.01.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by ANUJ
ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.07
16:05:41 +0530
CR No. 304/2024 Shabana Vs. State Page No. 6 of 6