Delhi District Court
Satyanarin Singhal vs Chander Mohan Goyal on 19 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-011546-2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 436/2022
1. SATYANARAIN SINGHAL,
S/o. Late Shri. Rameshwar Das,
R/o. 21/30, Front Side,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
(since deceased on 09.08.2024)
2. SIDDHANT SINGHAL,
S/o. Shri. Satyanarain Singhal,
R/o. 21/30, Front Side,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi. ... REVISIONISTS/
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. CHANDER MOHAN GOYAL,
S/o. Shri. Ram Dhari Goyal,
R/o. 20/22, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi.
2. STATE (GNCT of DELHI). ... RESPONDENTS
Date of e-filing : 04.08.2022
Date of institution : 06.08.2022
Date when judgment was reserved : 10.04.2026
Date when judgment is pronounced : 19.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code')/pari materia with Sections 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.02.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05/Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 1 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:05:30 +0530 as the 'Ld. MM/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing, 'Chander Mohan Goel v. Dayanand Singhal, Ct. Case No. 361/K/2011 (CIS No. 531044/16)', PS. Roop Nagar. Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 452/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), directed issuance of summons against, Dayanand Singhal, Satyanarain Singhal and Sidhant Singhal (hereinafter Satyanarain Singhal and Sidhant Singhal are collectively referred to as the 'revisionists'). Pertinent to outrightly note that during the course of pendency of the present proceedings/Ld. Trial Court proceedings, revisionist, namely, Satyanarain Singhal, left for heavenly abode on 09.08.2024. Consequently, the proceedings qua the said accused/revisionist no. 1 were abated by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 10.06.2025. Needless to mention that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists had correspondingly moved an application for amendment of memo of parties in the present case, as well, considering the factum of demise of revisionist no. 1.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings is a complaint, filed by respondent no. 1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Trial Court against the revisionists and Dayanand Singhal. Markedly, under the said complaint, respondent no. 1 inter alia proclaimed that on the occasion of Diwali, i.e., 17.10.2009 at around 10:00 p.m., his/respondent no. 1's employee/servant, namely, Joginder along with other boys were bursting crackers in front of respondent no. 1's house. However, suddenly, accused persons, namely, Dayananad Singhal along with revisionist no. 1 approached at the said spot and beat up/physically assaulted respondent no. 1's said servant as well as CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 2 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.05.19 17:05:39 +0530 threatened him of dire consequences, in case he burst, crackers again. It was further proclaimed by respondent no. 1 under his said complaint that during this process, respondent no. 1's employee/servant had some 'hot talk' with Dayanand Singhal and revisionist no. 1. However, around 15-20 minutes thereafter, someone knocked at the door of respondent no. 1's house and when he/respondent no. 1 responded to the said knocking, respondent no. 1 noted that the revisionists and Dayanand Singhal were present there along with their other unknown associates (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'accused persons'). Correspondingly, it was proclaimed by respondent no. 1 under his complaint that the said persons, forcibly entered inside his house and Dayanand Singhal, who was carrying a wooden rod/danda in his hand, started beating respondent no. 1's servant. 2.1. Noticeably, as per respondent no. 1 when he protested to the aforesaid acts, Dayanand Singhal publicized, "you know I am a Police Inspector and how dare your servant laugh in front of us". Thereupon, as per respondent no. 1, he endeavored to convince the aforenoted accused persons that his/respondent no. 1's servant did not laugh at the accused persons and that he/said servant was only bursting crackers on the occasion of Diwali. However, on hearing this, the accused persons got furious and started to abuse respondent no. 1 and his family members in a filthy language. It is further the case of respondent no. 1, upon hearing such unparliamentary language as well as loud noises, respondent no. 1's neighbours gathered at the spot, including Shri. M.K. Gupta and Shri. Amit Kumar. However, undeterred, Dayanand Singhal assaulted respondent no. 1 on his legs with danda. Correspondingly, when respondent no. 1's wife Smt. Raj CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 3 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:05:42 +0530 Goel tried to save respondent no. 1, revisionist no. 2 is asserted to have caught hold of her, whist Dayanand Singhal and revisionist no. 1 assaulted her/Smt. Raj Goel with danda, fists and kicks. It is further chronicled under the respondent no. 1's complaint that when respondent no. 1 tried to save his wife from the clutches of the said accused persons, then Dayanand Singhal attacked respondent no. 1 with danda. Correspondingly, as per respondent no. 1 in the said process, he/respondent no. 1, his servant Joginder and wife, Smt. Raj Goel, received grievous injuries. However, undeterred the accused persons, emerged out of respondent no. 1's house and started pelting stones on respondent no. 1's house as well as commenced abusing in filthy language. It was further proclaimed by respondent no. 1 that his wife received injuries due to said pelting of stones, whereupon respondent no. 1 made a call to PCR Van at 100 number at around 00:15 hrs. on 18.10.2009. 2.2. Remarkably, it was further proclaimed by respondent no. 1 under his complaint that upon the concerned police officials' reaching at the spot, he/respondent no. 1 narrated the entire episode the police officials. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 along with his wife and the aforesaid employee/servant were shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital and examined vide MLC No. 7885/09; MLC No. 7876/09; and MLC No. 7828/09, respectively. However, as per respondent no. 1, since the victims were not being provided proper treatment, victim/Joginder (respondent no. 1's servant) was shifted to Vinayak Hospital at around 02:15 a.m. Congruently, it was avowed by respondent no. 1 under his aforenoted complaint that the concerned police officials, while acting in collusion with Dayanand Singhal and the revisionists, in the meanwhile, got registered/initiated, a false case/FIR No. 206/2009, under Sections CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 4 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:05:46 +0530 324/325/34/188 IPC at PS. Roop Nagar, against him/respondent no. 1 and his son. Further, as per respondent no. 1 despite his persistent entreaties, though, neither his/respondent no. 1's complaint/FIR registered nor any action taken by the concerned police officials on respondent no. 1's concerns, however, the revisionists and their associates got registered a false complaint against respondent no. 1 as well as his relatives. Correspondingly, as per respondent no. 1, though, he issued written complaints to the concerned DCP, North District; DCP, North Zone-2; Joint Commissioner of Police as well as other superior police officials on 28.10.2009, followed by a subsequent complaint dated 20.09.2011, however, neither action was taken against Dayanand Singhal, revisionists as well as their other associates by any of the police officials, nor any FIR registered against the said perpetrators. Ergo, under said facts and circumstances as well as being aggrieved by utter inaction on the part of the police officials, respondent no. 1 approached the Ld. Trial Court by means of the aforenoted complaint along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. inter alia seeking registration of FIR against the accused persons.
2.3. Significantly, upon such complaint and application having been filed before the Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 12.12.2011, Ld. Trial Court issued notice to the concerned SHO to file and action taken report/ATR thereon. Subsequently, on 31.01.2012, ATR was filed by/on behalf of the concerned SHO.
Thereafter, upon arguments being addressed by/on behalf of respondent no. 1 and on consideration inter alia of said ATR, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2012, dismissed respondent no. 1's said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whilst listing the CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 5 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:05:49 +0530 matter for pre-summoning evidence on respondent no. 1's aforenoted complaint. Apposite here to reproduce the relevant extracts of order dated 23.05.2012 of the Ld. Trial Court, as under;
"*** Arguments on the application U/s. 156(3) CrPC heard. Records perused.
The incident in question took place on 17.10.2009. FIR No. 206/09 U/s. 324/325/34/188 IPC PS Roop Nagar at the instance of respondent no. 1 has been registered against the complainant and his son. The present complaint case has been filed by the complainant on 25.11.2011. Since the present complaint case appears to be a cross case and the entire evidence is within the reach of the complainant, the application U/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. is declined.
However, the matter be listed for complainant evidence on ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Subsequently, during the course of recording of pre- summoning evidence, respondent no. 1 adduced himself as CW-1/Chander Mohan Goel, as well as also adduced, Smt. Raj Goyal as CW-2; Sh. Mahender Kumar as CW-3; and Sh. Joginder Mahto as CW-4, leading to the closing of pre-summoning evidence on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, upon arguments on the aspect of summoning having been addressed by/on behalf of respondent no. 1, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 29.02.2020/impugned order, while taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC, issued summons against, Dayanand Singhal, Satyanarain Singhal and Sidhant Singhal. Pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts of impugned order, as under;
"***I have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant at length and carefully perused the records. Having noted the case of complainant, in nutshell, and the evidence came on record at the stage of pre- summoning it is necessary to have look at the scope of proceedings till this stage and the approach to be adopted by the court for further proceedings.
CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 6 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.05.19 17:05:52 +0530
The object of enquiry till this stage is to see whether there is a prima facie case for issuing process against the proposed accused persons or not. The enquiry cannot, therefore be reduced to a trial to see whether the proposed accused is guilty or not(Bal Raj Vs Moti Ram( 1971) 399; S.S Khanna Vs Chief Secretary AIR 1983 SC 595). This question, namely, whether there is a prima facie case for issuance of process is to be decided purely from the point of complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused might have (Ref: Nagwwa Vs Veeranna Shivlangappa AIR 1976 SC 1947). At this stage the law does not required any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint has been preferred. The expression 'Sufficient ground for proceeding' has been used in Section 203 and 204 Cr.PC, in the same context, and has, therefore, to be similarly interpreted i.e to mean 'the satisfaction that a prima facie case has been made out against the person accused, so as to justify the issue of process and not whether there was sufficient evidence for the purpose of conviction' (Rula Vs State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC
97).
When the complainant and his wife were examined on oath where they deposed on the lines of the complaint. They deposed specifically that initially their servant namely Joginder (CW4) was beaten up by respondent no.1 and 2 and thereafter all three respondents armed with danda entered into their house and beaten them along with their servant Joginder. The testimony of Joginder Kumar (CW4) is also on the lines of testimony of the complainant. CW3 also deposed that respondent Dayanand was having a danda in his hand and he tried to hit the complainant but inadvertently that danda hit against respondent no.2. The MLCs were exhibited as Ex.CW2/A1 and Ex.CW2/A2 which reveals that injured persons were suffered simple injuries. The testimony of CW1, CW2 and CW4 prima facie proved on record that respondents forcibly entered into the house of the complainant armed with danda. I found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses. The MLCs are proved on record. It is came on record that the respondents trespassed into the house of the complainant after made preparation of causing hurt to the complainant or his family members or for assaulting them. There is no specific allegations as to the offence of criminal intimidation. It is not came on record specifically as to what was said by the respondents at CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 7 of 34 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.05.19 17:05:57 +0530 the time of alleged criminal intimidation or as to whether any alarm was caused to the person intimidated or not. The offence U/s 506 IPC is not made out.
However, in view of the testimonies of witnesses examined on oath and documents proved on record prima facie offences U/s 452/323/34 IPC made out. Accordingly, respondents as mentioned at serial no. 1 to 3 be summoned for next date of hearing, on the steps taken by the complainant within 7 days. Put up for appearance of accused persons and further proceedings on ***"
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled cannons of law, deserving the same 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 described under the said order. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the impugned order is unjustified and perverse, whist the Ld. Trial Court committed manifest error and failed to appreciate that the pre-summoning evidence of the complainant/respondent no. 1 is self-contradictory and unworthy of credence. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the instant complaint proceedings were initiated by/on behalf of respondent no. 1 solely with malice and in a vindictive manner, as a counterblast to the FIR registered against the illegal acts of respondent no. 1 and his son. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the observations under the impugned order were premised totally on factors, extraneous to the material brought on record. In this regard, it was vehemently argued that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court not only traversed beyond the pleadings, CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 8 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:06:00 +0530 rather, also gave findings on mere assumptions, by stretching the facts beyond the material brought forth on record. As per the Ld. Counsel, under the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court inter alia noted, "... all three respondents along with two unknown persons entered into house of Respondent armed with danda...", which finding is contrary to the statements of the various witnesses adduced during the pre-summoning stage, who merely alleged that only Dayanand Singhal was carrying a danda at the time of alleged occurrence. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, though, the Ld. Trial Court noted under the impugned order that the complainant/respondent no. 1, his wife, son as well as servant Joginder were beaten up, however, under his complaint, respondent no. 1 merely asserted that his wife and servant alone received grievous injuries. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, respondent no. 1 nowhere mentions of his son having received any injury, whatsoever, negating the findings of the Ld. Trial Court. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, despite the fact that there is neither any assertion under respondent no. 1's complaint nor under any document or even in the pre-summoning evidence, led before the Ld. Trial Court that the accused persons, went to respondent no. 1's house on the following day to threaten the family of respondent no. 1, Ld. Trial Court proceeded to give the said finding, contrary to the material brought forth.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist no. 1 was admitted in ICU, Hindu Rao Hospital on 18.10.2009, owing to grievous injuries sustained by him, by/at the behest of respondent no. 1 as well as his associates, accentuating falsity in the claims/allegations of respondent no. 1.
CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 9 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:06:04 +0530
Correspondingly, it was argued that the spuriousness in the accusations of respondent no. 1 is further highlighted by the fact that though respondent no. 1 averred before the Ld. Trial Court that his son took his servant, Joginder/CW-4 to a government Hospital on 18.10.2009 at around 02:00 a.m., however, it is seen from the MLC of Joginder/CW-4 that he eloped from the government Hospital and then tried to get his MLC prepared from a private hospital, suited for their own cause. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further vehemently asserted that in case Joginder/CW-4 was really critically injured, as asserted by respondent no. 1, it is incomprehensible as to why CW-4 would leave the government Hospital in the alleged critical medical state/condition. Even otherwise, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that upon a perusal of the MLCs bearing nos. 7885/09 and 7876/09 of respondent no. 1 as well as his wife, respectively, it is quite evident that the said medical examination was got conducted only on 19.10.2009 at 10:00 p.m., i.e., two days after the alleged incident, solely only as an afterthought and to falsely implicate the revisionists as well as their family members in the present case. Even otherwise, it is not comprehensible from the records that though respondent no. 1's son allegedly took their servant, Joginder to a Hospital on 18.10.2009, however, he did not take his own parents with him to Hospital on the said date. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the MLCs of the victims placed on record are false and fabricated, created solely to falsely implicate the revisionists and their family members in the present false case. Even otherwise, it was submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the MLCs attached with the complaint, mention the injuries on the CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 10 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:07 +0530 alleged victims to be either simple or a complete lack of any external injuries, belying the case against the revisionists. Correspondingly, it was submitted that the MLC of respondent no. 1's servant only mentions of existence of abrasions on the scalp of the said alleged victim, whereas under letters dated 19.10.2009 and 30.10.2009, respondent no. 1 falsely asserted that his said servant received stitches.
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists further submitted that there are several improvements, contradictions and novel introductions in the version put forth by respondent no. 1 in his initial complaint and that under respondent no. 1's statement recorded before the Ld. Trial Court at the pre-summoning stage, belying the case put forth against the accused persons/revisionists.
As per the Ld. Counsel, the facts brought forth on record, as also deposed by CW-1, CW-2, CW-3 and CW-4 in their respective statements before the Ld. Trial Court, do not align with each other, accentuating the falsity in the story of the prosecution. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel even the statement of the eyewitness, namely, Mahender Kumar Gupta mentions that he was on his way to a temple/mandir, whereas the incident allegedly took place inside respondent no. 1's house, as per the statement of the complainant/respondent no. 1, demonstrating falsity in the story of the respondent no. 1. Even otherwise, it was argued that respondent no. 1 failed to prove any preemptive motive on the part of the revisionists, so as to establish even a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC against the revisionists. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted in this regard that the allegations levelled by respondent no. 1, clearly demonstrate that no concurrence between any actus reus and mens CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 11 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:12 +0530 rea to commit alleged acts/offences, exist in the instant case. Even otherwise, it was argued that respondent no. 1 has even failed to prove the presence of revisionist no. 2 at the place of alleged incident. Even otherwise, it was argued that no role was attributed to revisionist no. 2 under the pre-summoning evidence. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that though respondent no. 1 alleged under his complaint that revisionist no. 2 caught hold of respondent no. 1's wife's/CW-2's hand, however, nowhere under her statement Smt. Raj Goel/CW-2 asserted regarding any role of revisionist no. 2. Concomitantly, as per the Ld. Counsel neither respondent no. 1 nor his servant deposed of any role/allegations against revisionist no. 2 in pre-summoning evidence before the Ld. Trial Court. Further, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that even the delay in preferring/filing the instant complaint is not forthcoming from any material brought on record. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists vehemently submitted that the present complaint was filed only on 25.11.2011, i.e., after lapse of around two years, without any explanation in this regard being placed on record.
3.3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists further submitted that on the basis of documents on record, respondent no. 1 has failed to establish the role and commission of the alleged acts/incidence by the revisionist, belying even a prima facie case against the said revisionists. It was further submitted that while passing the order to the detriment of the revisionists, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that respondent no. 1 made several false complaints against the revisionists and their family members, with a sole intention to harass them. Even otherwise, while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly consider the CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 12 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:15 +0530 'Action Taken Report' dated 31.01.2012, wherein it was specifically noted that the allegations under respondent no. 1's complaint were determined to be unsubstantiated. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, while passing an order of summoning inter alia of the revisionists, the Ld. Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the governing law, rather, proceeded to even incorrectly place reliance on the decisions, inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Ergo, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists vehemently asserted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court in contravention of the settled judicial precedents as well as being unmindful of the material brought forth, making the same liable to be outrightly set aside. In support of the said contentions, reliance has been placed upon the decisions in; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749; Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435; Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1489; Mitter Sen v. State of UP, AIR 1976 SC 1156; Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420; Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holding Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610; Deepak Gaba v. State of UP, (2023) 3 SCC 423; HDFC Securities Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 1 SCC 420; Eknath Ganpat Aher v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 519; MN Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav, (2009) 9 SCC 682; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Girdharilal Sapuru, (1981) 2 SCC 758; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, (2008) 14 SCC 582; Yogesh Jagia v. Jindl Biochem Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online Del. 1764; Haladhara Karji v. Dileshwar Subudhi, 1989 Cri.LJ 629; Harvinder Singh Sandhu v. State of MP, Misc Crl. Case No. 8094/2022, dated CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 13 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:19 +0530 17.08.2022 (Hon'ble High Court of MP); Sripal v. State of UP, 2009 SCC Online All. 2174; State of UP v. Gauri Shankar, 1992 SCC Online All. 850; and Paras Nath v. State of UP, 1981 SCC Online All. 810.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.
2 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 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. Ergo, Ld. Addl. PP for the State entreated that the instant petition be outrightly dismissed.
4.1. Ld. Counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 1, while supplementing the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, as per the settled law and considering the allegations brought against the revisionists and their associates under respondent no. 1's complaint. Congruently, it was argued that no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order, which was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, being wary of the material brought on record as well as of the judicial precedents governing the field of summons. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently reiterated that from the facts and circumstances brought forth prima facie ingredients of the offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC are made out in the instant case. As per the Ld. Counsel there are clear allegations against the revisionists and their associates for the commission of the said offences, duly corroborated by the CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 14 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:06:23 +0530 consistent statements of the witnesses and material brought forth on record, including the MLCs of the victims. Ergo, Ld. Counsel vehemently reiterated that no illegality or impropriety can be attributed to the impugned order, even on merits, disentitling the revisionist to claim any indulgence from this Court. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of A.P., (2014) 5 SCC 369; State of MP v. Ramkumar Choudhary, SLP (C) Diary No. 48636/2024, dated 29.11.2024 (SC); A.K. Subbaiah v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 4 SCC 557; Balli Chaudhary v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC Online MP 3444; Sathy M.P. v. Sarasa & Anr., R.P. No. 497/2015 in RSA No. 646/2009, dated 06.11.2023 (Hon'ble Kerala High Court); and Prabhakar Pandey v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online All 2559.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionists, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 1 and that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 2 have been heard as well as the records, including the Ld. Trial Court records, case laws relied upon by the parties as well as the written submissions/synopsis, filed by the parties have been thoroughly perused.
6. At the outset, this Court deems it pertinent to note that the issue for consideration before this Court in the present case is, 'whether the Ld. Trial Court committed any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness by taking cognizance of offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC and inter alia summoning the revisionists?'. However, before proceeding with the determination of the said issue/question, this Court deems it apposite here to CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 15 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:27 +0530 make a reference to the provisions under law/Section 397 Cr.P.C.1, germane for the present discourse, as under;
"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.
*** *** *** (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, solely in the cases 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 BNSS), observed as under:
1Pari materia to Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/BNSS, which provides; "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.***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 439.***(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. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 16 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.05.19 17:06:31 +0530
"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.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC Online Del 1192, in a comparable situation, remarked 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 CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 17 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:34 +0530 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 law2 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 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) 2 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. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 18 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:06:37 +0530
10. Notably in the context of the foregoing, it is further apposite to observe here that it is no longer res integra3 that the order of summoning is not an interlocutory order and revision against the same is not barred by the provisions under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Reference, in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the distinction between; final, intermediate and interlocutory order as well as determining the connotation of 'intermediate order(s)' as well as noting the order of summoning to be intermediate in nature, inter alia, observed as under;
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass-final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction--that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
*** *** ***
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind--an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final 3 Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd.& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 1032.
CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 19 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.05.19 17:06:41 +0530
order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Clearly, it is seen from above that the Hon'ble Apex Court in unambiguous terms noted that though the order taking cognizance and summoning an accused prima facie appear to be interlocutory in nature, however, when the said orders are reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour, bringing them within the umbrella of 'intermediate order' on which the bar envisaged under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. would not apply.
12. Ergo, being wary of the foregoing, this Court would now proceed with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to reiterate that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists vehemently contended that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the material brought on record as well as pass a reasoned order, while inter alia summoning the revisionists. However, the said contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists, fails to impress this Court. On the contrary, from a conscientious perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that while taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC and issuing summons inter alia against the revisionists, the Ld. Trial Court duly considered the material placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court, including the pre-summoning evidence of the complainant/respondent no. 1/Sh. Chander Mohan Goel, CW-2/Smt. Raj Goel, CW-3/Shri. Mahender Kumar Gupta, and CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 20 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:06:45 +0530 CW-4/Shri. Joginder Kumar; documents and material placed on record, including the copy of complainant's/respondent no. 1's complaint addressed to the Home Minister, Delhi Government dated 30.10.2009 (Mark A (Colly.)); copy of complaint dated 19.10.2009, issued by the complainant/respondent no. 1 to the concerned DCP, North Zone 2 (Mark B (Colly.)); copy of complaint dated 18.10.2009, issued by respondent no. 1 to the concerned SHO, PS. Roop Nagar (Mark C); copy of complaint dated 19.10.2009, issued by the complainant/respondent no. 1 to the Commissioner of Police (Mark D (Colly.)); copy of letter dated 27.10.2009, received from Chief Minister's Office (Mark E); photocopy of discharge slip of Vinayak Hospital (Mark F); MLC of the complainant/Chander Mohan Goel (Ex. CW2/A2); MLC of Smt. Raj Goel (Ex. CW2/A1); MLC of Joginder Kumar (Ex. CW4/A); and discharge slip of Joginder Kumar (Mark A), placed on record by the complainant/respondent no. 1 during the course of proceedings of the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, Ld. Trial Court under the impugned order, duly considered the reasons for determining that prima facie grounds for proceeding further for the offences under Section 506 IPC are not made out in the instant case, besides also considered from the material brought on record that prima facie case for summoning inter alia the revisionists under Sections 452/323/34 IPC was made out in the instant case. Ergo, under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be termed to be non-speaking or unreasoned in any manner. On the contrary, this Court reiterates that from a scrupulous analysis of the material brought on record of the Ld. Trial Court, it is observed that the Ld. Trial Court, applied its mind to the documents, material and facts brought CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 21 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:49 +0530 before it to first determine whether any offence was committed in the instant case and, then, proceeded to identify the persons, who appear to have committed the said offence. In fact, it is only then, that the Ld. Trial Court proceeded to issue summons only against Dayanand Singhal and the revisionists herein, while determining that prima facie case/reason(s) exists to summons the said accused persons for the offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC, in light of the material brought forth on record.
13. Even otherwise, this Court is cognizant of the repeated avowals of the superior courts that an order of summoning cannot be faulted with when such an order reflect mental application, though, the same may not be a dissertation of reasons. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC Online SC 886, wherein the Hon'ble Court, whilst being confronted with an akin conundrum, explicated the law in the following terms;
"15. Coming to the first issue, we have no hesitation to record that the approach of the High Court was totally erroneous. Perusal of the Order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2019 discloses that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated that the 'case diary and case record' have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case made out under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants. Further, we find the approach of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any offence has been committed and thereafter went into the aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to have committed the offence. Accordingly, the process moves to the next stage; of issuance of summons or warrant, as the case may be, against such persons.
16. In the present case, we find that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has taken cognizance while CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 22 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:53 +0530 recording a finding that - from a perusal of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, including the Appellants. In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order; relevant paragraphs being as under:
'14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.
15. In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] the following passage will be apposite in this context : (SCC p. 726, para 12) "12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages.
We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial."***
16. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [(1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507] this Court held that it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. It was further held that in deciding whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 23 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:06:56 +0530 consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. It was further held that : (SCC p. 741, para 5) "5. ... Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused."
17. In Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 788] this Court, in para 9, held as under
: (SCC pp. 145-46) "9. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. This question was considered recently in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 745] and after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] it was held as follows: (U.P. Pollution case [(2000) 3 SCC 745], SCC p. 749, para 6) '6. The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order.'"
18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v.
Bhupendra Kumar Modi [(2009) 2 SCC 147 :
CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 24 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:00 +0530 (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679] this Court, in para 23, held as under : (SCC p. 154) "23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused."
19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned order.' *** *** ***
20. Here, the Court would pause to delve on what is the scope of the exercise of application of mind on the police papers/case diary for deciding as to whether to take cognizance or not - it has only to be seen whether there is material forthcoming to indicate commission of the offence(s) alleged. The concerned Court is not empowered to go into the veracity of the material at that time. That is why, the law provides for a trial where it is open to both the parties i.e., the prosecution as well as the defence to lead evidence(s) either to prove the materials which have come against the accused or to disprove such findings..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Correspondingly, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjit Bakshi v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC Online Del 3614, wherein the Hon'ble Court, remarked, as under;
"7. Cognizance implies application of judicial mind by the Magistrate to the facts as stated in a complaint or a police report or upon information received from any person that an offence has been committed. It is the stage when a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. The cognizance of an offence is stated to be taken once the Magistrate applies his mind to the offence alleged and decides to initiate proceeding against the proposed accused. The Court before taking cognizance needs to be satisfied about existence of prima facie case on basis of material collected after conclusion of investigation. The magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts stated in the police report or complaint before taking cognizance for coming to CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 25 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:07:03 +0530 the conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed with the case. Taking of cognizance is a judicial function and judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner. It is not only against the settled judicial norms but also reflects lack of application of judicial mind to the facts of the case. It is equally important to note that at time of taking cognizance a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigation. It is not necessary to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Markedly, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as judicial dictates and further, from a conscientious analysis of the material brought forth even this Court observes that respondent no. 1 examined himself as CW-1 where he reiterated of the incident by inter alia proclaiming that on 17.10.2009 at around 10:00 p.m., in the night of Diwali, CW-1's servant Joginder along with other boys was setting fire to the crackers in front of his/CW-1's house. However, all of a sudden, accused Dayanand Singhal and his brother, Satyanarain Singhal/revisionist no. 1 approached there and beat Joginder as well as threatened him of dire consequences, in case is again dared to burst crackers. During the quarrel, as per CW-1, Joginder had some fight with Dayanand Singhal and his brother/revisionist no. 1 and 15-20 minutes thereafter, someone knocked at the door of CW-1's house. Correspondingly, CW-1 proclaimed that when he opened the door, Dayanand Singhal, Satyanarain Singhal/revisionist no. 1 (since deceased) and Sidhant/revisionist no. 2 along with two other unknown persons forcibly entered CW-1's house. Further, as per CW-1 Dayanand was carrying a wooden rod (danda) in his hand and all of sudden, he/Dayanand Singhal started beating Joginder CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 26 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:06 +0530 and when he/CW-1 as well as his son tried to rescue Joginder, they all armed started beating him/CW-1, his wife and son, whereupon they received grievous injuries. Thereafter, as per CW-1, he called at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot, whereupon Joginder was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital for treatment and MLC was prepared by the Doctor. After that, as per CW-1, Joginder was again threatened in Hindu Rao Hospital by one policeman, namely, Anil Kumar, who was Dayanand's relative. Consequently, as per CW-1, at around 02:00 a.m., Joginder was admitted in Vinayak Hospital. Pertinently, the said facts were further reiterated by CW-2/Smt. Raj Goel as well as CW-4/Joginder Kumar, in their respective depositions/statements, recorded at pre-summoning evidence.
16. Noticeably, even CW-3/Mahender Kumar Gupta in his statement recorded before the Ld. Trial Court inter alia avowed that on 17.10.2009, in the night of Diwali, when he was proceeding for temple, he saw that several persons were gathered in front of Chander Mohan's/respondent no. 1's house. Further, as per CW-3, when he went at the said spot, he saw that Dayanand, Satyanarain/revisionist no. 1 (since deceased) and Sidhant/revisionist no. 2 were fighting with respondent no. 1, his son, Anshul Goel and servant, Joginder. Further, as per CW-3, Dayanand was carrying a wooden rod (danda) in his hand, and he tried to hit Chander Mohan Goel/respondent no. 1. Ergo, in light of the foregoing statements of CW-1, CW-2, CW-3 and CW-4, in light of the other material/documents placed on record, including the MLCs of aforenoted victims, even in the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient reasons/grounds exist for summoning of the revisionists herein for the offences under Sections 452/323/34 CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 27 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.05.19 17:07:10 +0530 IPC in the instant case.
17. In as much as the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists pertaining to the alleged contradictions/ inconsistencies/discrepancies in the statements of various witnesses brought on record or that pertaining to absence of revisionist no. 2 at the alleged spot of occurrence or that related to delay in preparation of MLC and issuance/registration of complaint or that of absence of grievous injuries on the MLC of the victims or that the instant proceedings being a counterblast to the FIR proceedings initiated at the behest of the revisionists against respondent no. 1 and his associates, are concerned, same in the considered opinion of this Court are all subject matters of trial, which cannot be dealt into at the stage of the present proceedings. Needless to reiterate that the law is trite that at the stage of taking cognizance, Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigation. On the contrary, as aforenoted, from a meticulous scrutiny of the material brought on record it is noted that there is prima facie evidence that the revisionists along with their other associates, including Dayanand Singhal, trespassed into respondent no. 1's house, whilst having made preparation for causing hurt, assault, etc., and thereafter, the accused persons caused hurt to the complainant/CW-1, Smt. Raj Goel/CW-2 and Joginder Kumar/CW-4.
18. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, this Court reiterates that in the considered opinion of this Court, impugned order cannot be termed to be illegal or improper, rather, the same has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court, being wary of all the material brought on record and in consonance with the settled judicial CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 28 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:13 +0530 dictates. Needless to mention that the impugned order reflects due application of mind by the Ld. Trial Court and in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be termed to be unreasoned or indecorous, in any manner. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to reiterate that it is also not impressed with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the Ld. Trial Court did not check/evaluate the veracity of the allegations levelled against the revisionists, while passing the impugned order of summoning the revisionist. As aforenoted, superior courts have persistently avowed that courts are neither empowered nor required to go into the veracity of the allegations/material brought forth at the time of cognizance/summoning and that whether or not the material/evidence brought forth is adequate for supporting the conviction of an accused, which can only be determined at the trial and not at such initial stage(s).
19. As a concluding remark, this Court deems it apposite to note that against the order dated 29.02.2020/impugned order, the present revision petition came to be filed by/on behalf of the revisionists only on 04.08.2022, with a delay. Apposite to outrightly note that as per Article 131 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Limitation Act'), a period of 90 (ninety) days, from the date of the order sought to be challenged, has been prescribed as the statutory period of limitation. Markedly, in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, accompanying the present revision petition, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has entreated for condonation of delay in preferring the instant revision petition, inter alia professing, as under;
"...2. That the Revisionist nos. 1 and 2 received the summons first time on 17.03.2022 and thereafter CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 29 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:18 +0530 the revisionists duly appeared before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 22.03.2022 and 08.07.2022.
*** *** ***
4. That it is submitted that the daughter of the Revisionist no. 1 who is also sister of Revisionist no. 2 was hospitalized due to her emergent medical conditions therefore the revisionists could not pursue to file the accompanying revision application.
5. That it is submitted that the summons were received first time on 17.03.2022 and 90 days therefrom expire on 17.06.2022. Therefore, the Revisionist nos. 1 and 2 seeks condonation of inadvertent and unintentional delay of 43 days in filing the accompanying revision application.
6. That the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the revisionists. Further irreparable harm and injury would be caused if the present application is not allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER The Revisionists, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court may most graciously be pleased to :-
a. Condone the delay of 43 days in filing the revision application under Section 397 Of Cr.P.C., 1973 on behalf of Revisionist nos. 1 and 2 against the Order of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court dated 29.02.2020 in Case Bearing No. Ct.
Cases/531044/2016;***"
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Clearly, it is seen from above that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has attributed the delay to the medical condition of revisionist no. 1's daughter, who is also sister of revisionist no. 2. Correspondingly, in the subsequent timelines, for delay sought to be condoned, it has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the certified copy of the complaint was received on 08.04.2022 by the Ld. Counsel, besides revisionist no. 1's daughter, who is also sister of revisionist no. 2 was persistently suffering with medical condition. As per the Ld. Counsel, it was only on 27.07.2022, the instant petition came to be filed with a CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 30 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:21 +0530 delay of 43 (forty three) days. However, in light of the foregoing, considering the records of the Ld. Trial Court, it is observed that though, this Court concedes that considering the ongoing covid 19 pandemic fresh summons qua the accused persons were repeatedly issued by the Ld. Trial Court. In fact, upon summons being last issued by the Ld. Trial Court on 22.12.2021, the accused persons entered appearance before the Ld. Trial Court only on 22.03.2022. Ergo, considering that the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the summons were first received by the revisionists on 17.03.2022, the period of 90 (ninety) days, expired on 15.06.2022 and the instant petition was filed only on 04.08.2022, with a delay of 50 (fifty) days. Consequently, when the aforesaid application of the revisionists seeking condonation of delay is scrupulously analyzed, it is noted that not only the same, does not record the exact and correct period of delay sought to be condoned, rather, the reasons/grounds mentioned therein, are not corroborated by documents and other material particulars.
Apposite, in this regard to mention that though, it is the case of the revisionists that a certified copy of the revision was received on 08.04.2022, however, the period when such copy was applied for has not been mentioned under the application or subsequent timeline chart. Needless to mention, that the instant revision is not accompanied with any certified copy of the order/impugned order. Correspondingly, in as much as the alleged medical condition of revisionist no. 1's daughter, who is also sister of revisionist no. 2 is concerned, it is noted that except for general medical prescription and hospitalization period from 25.06.2022 till 29.06.2022, nothing else has been brought on record to convince this Court of the existence of sufficient cause to condone CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 31 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:25 +0530 the said period of delay of 50 (fifty) days. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to note that it is conscious of the repeated avowals4 of the superior courts that there is no presumption under law that the delay in approaching courts was deliberate on the part of the litigant and that the courts are advised by superior courts to adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, in variance to, technical interpretation, while considering an entreaty for condonation of delay. However, this Court is equally conscious that the superior courts have also untiringly declared5 that an application for condonation of delay, "should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system." As a corollary, application for condonation of delay, which is drafted in an extremely casual manner so as to even be bereft of material particulars, besides failing to disclose sufficient cause, cannot be considered to be sufficient enough to permit condonation of delay. Ergo, in light of the said principles, when the reasons for condonation of delay are scrupulously analyzed, this Court reiterates that it finds itself difficult to be convinced that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists/revisionists has/have been able to make out 'sufficient cause' for not timely preferring the present revision. Needless to reiterate that though it is the assertion of Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that time was spent in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order and complaint, records reflect that no such certified copy of order/impugned order has been annexed with the present petition, except for a computer-generated copy thereof. Correspondingly, 4 J.M. Ramachandra & Sons v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1082.5
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 32 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:29 +0530 except for general medical prescription and hospitalization period from 25.06.2022 till 29.06.2022, nothing else has been brought on record that the revisionists were in fact, taking take of the ailing daughter of revisionist no. 1. Needless to further reiterate that the instant application, in fact, does not even specify the exact period of delay sought to be condoned. Clearly, the application has been drafted with utmost casual approach, failing to demonstrate any reasonable/justifiable cause, convincing this Court to grant any relief or indulgence in favour of the revisionists, even on the aspect of delay/limitation at this stage.
21. Conclusively, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unswervingly reiterates that the Ld. Trial Court did not commit any illegality and/or impropriety under the impugned order, while taking cognizance of offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC and directing issuance of summons inter alia against the revisionists, in light of the facts and circumstances, arguments addressed, documents and the material placed on record, as well as judicial dictates. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, both on merits as well as on the aspect of delay/limitation. Correspondingly, the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case bearing, 'Chander Mohan Goel v. Dayanand Singhal, Ct. Case No. 361/K/2011 (CIS No. 531044/16)', PS. Roop Nagar, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 452/323/34 IPC and directed issuance of summons against, Dayanand Singhal, Satyanarain Singhal and Sidhant Singhal is hereby upheld/affirmed. Needles to reiterate that the proceedings qua revisionist no. 1 have already been abated vide order dated CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 33 of 34 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:32 +0530 10.06.2025 of the Ld. Trial Court, owing to the demise of the said revisionist. Apposite at this stage to further note that, though, this Court holds highest regard for the decisions relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, same would not come to the aid/rescue of the revisionists in the manner as prayed, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly, distinguishable. Needless at this stage to further note that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as opinion on final outcome of the case and the same shall be decided in accordance with law upon conclusion of evidence.
22. Trial Court Record along with a copy of this order/judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for record and compliance purpose(s).
23. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.05.19 17:07:37 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 19.05.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 436/2022 Satyanarain Singhal & Anr. v. Chander Mohan Goyal & Anr. Page No. 34 of 34