Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi on 13 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-014379-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 374/2024
SHRI. VIJAY KUMAR,
S/o. Late Shri. Sultan Singh,
R/o. Plot No. 26, Ground Floor,
Sector-12B, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI),
Through, SHO,
PS. Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
Delhi (Central).
2. SHRI. RAJESH KUMAR,
S/o. Late Shri. Sultan Singh,
R/o. Plot No. 26, First Floor,
Sector-12B, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of e-filing : 10.09.2024
Date of institution : 19.09.2024
Date when judgment was reserved : 22.07.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 13.10.2025
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 19.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Judicial Metropolitan First Class-05/Ld. JMFC-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ( hereinafter referred CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 1 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:31:49 +0530 to as the 'Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing, 'Vijay Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Case No. 2485/2023', PS. Nabi Karim. Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application, preferred by the revisionist in terms of the provisions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though, listing the matter for Pre-Summoning Evidence/PSE.
2. Briefly, the facts leading to the initiation of the present proceedings, as per the revisionist are that he/the revisionist has been in possession of First Floor of the premise bearing no. 6568, Gali No.15, Nabi Karim, Phar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 (hereinafter referred to as the 'premise'), which is stated to have been purchased by him/the revisionist in the name of his father, namely, Shri. Sultan Singh. It if further the case of the revisionist that respondent no. 2 is the younger brother of the revisionist and that he/respondent no. 2, by playing fraud, while acting in collusion and conspiracy with revisionist's sisters, manipulated/fabricated a false/illegal Will of Late Shri Sultan Singh, who was mentally and physical incapacitated to understand as well as execute any document, much less a Will because of his poor health condition. As per the revisionist, since he was in possession of the premise, respondent no. 2 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the revisionist, bearing; 'Rajesh Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, CSDJ/554/2019', pending adjudication before Ld. District Judge, Central Tis Hazari, Delhi. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, he has also filed a suit bearing, 'Vijay Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., CS DJ/825/2019', inter alia seeking cancellation of the said alleged Will of Late Shri. Sultan Singh as well as permanent injunction. It is further avowed by the revisionist that the revisionist and CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 2 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:31:54 +0530 respondent no. 2 have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the premise, during the pendency of the suit vide orders dated 10.01.2020 and 31.08.2021. 2.1. It is further the case of the revisionist that on 16.10.2023, the revisionist made a visit to the premise and noted, to his utter surprise that the said premise was trespassed, by breaking open of the locks thereof by respondent no. 2 and theft of all the revisionist's goods/items was committed.
Correspondingly, it was noted by the revisionist that the premise had been leased out to some tenants on huge rent. Consequently, the revisionist is asserted to have taken photographs of the premise as well as made video from his mobile phone, regarding the illegal acts of respondent no. 2. Congruently, on the same day, i.e., on 16.10.2023, a complaint was filed by the revisionist before PS. Nabi Karim, seeking action on the illegal acts of respondent no. 2. However, since, despite passage of significant time span, no action was taken by the concerned police officials against respondent no. 2, the revisionist issued/sent/forwarded a copy of his said complaint to the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, District Central, Delhi, through Speed Post on 20.10.2023. However, as per the revisionist, no action was taken by the concerned police officials, despite persistent requests/entreaties of the revisionist, besides no FIR has been registered by the concerned police officials. 2.2. 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 a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 3 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:31:59 +0530 entreaty for registration of FIR in terms of the provisions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Relevantly, the Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2023, directed the concerned police official/SHO to file of action taken report/ATR/status report on the complaint/application filed by/on behalf of the revisionist. 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, inter alia, noting, as under;
"*** 2. Complainant in his complaint stated that his younger brother Rajesh Kumar by playing fraud under a conspiracy to defraud the complainant in collision with the sisters had manipulated an illegal will of Lt. Sh. Sultan Singh. He further stated that he has been in possession of property bearing no. 6568 1st floor, Gali No. 15, Nabi Karim, Delhi. He further stated that on 16.10.2023 he visited the above said property and shocked to see that locks of the said premises were broken and theft has been committed. He further stated that the said property has been lent out on rent by his younger brother.
3. Enquiry in the present complaint was conducted and during course of enquiry alleged person Rajesh was directed to join enquiry who subsequently joined enquiry who stated that his father Lt. Sultan Singh has made him the owner of said property by will. Subsequently notice was served to alleged person for providing requisite details reply of which is still awaited.
4. However, due to law & order arrangements and investigation of other cases, enquiry in the present complaint could not be conducted on time Hence, Hon'ble court is kindly requested to grant some more time to finalize the enquiry in the present matter and undersigned is highly regretted for inconvenience caused to the Hon'ble court. ***"
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Subsequently, on 04.05.2024, ATR/status report dated 03.05.2024, came to be filed by/on behalf of the concerned SHO before the Ld. Trial Court inter alia, recording as under;
CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 4 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13
15:32:03 +0530
"*** 2. Complainant in his complaint stated that his younger brother Rajesh Kumar by playing fraud under a conspiracy to defraud the complainant in collusion with the sisters had manipulated an illegal will of La. Sh. Sultan Singh. He further stated that he has been in possession of property bearing no. 6568, 1st floor, Gali No. 15. Nabi Karim, Delhi He further stated that on 16.10.2023 he visited the above said property and shocked to see that locks of the said premises were broken and theft has been committed. Ile further stated that the said property has been lent out on rent by his younger brother.
3. Enquiry in the present complaint was conducted and during course of enquiry alleged person Rajesh was directed to join enquiry subsequently joined enquiry who stated that his father Lt. Sultan Singh has made him the owner of said property by will. Subsequently notice was served to alleged person for providing requisite details reply of which has been procured and as per documents the said property has been transferred to Rajesh Kumar by the said will dated 22.9.2016. He further stated that in 2018 he has given his disputed property to Vijay Kumar for keeping some goods and same has been vacated later on.
4. Moreover complainant has made no-PCR calls or given any written complaint at that time. Complainant has filed first complaint regarding the incident in 2023. This clearly shows that present complaint is an afterthought complaint and concocted one.
5. Moreover, during course of enquiry it also came to notice that in civil case no. CS-DJ-825/2019- Vijay Kumar vs. Rajesh Kumar is clearly mentioned in the order dated 10.1.2020 that Rajesh Kumar is in possession of said property (Copy of order enclosed).
6. Moreover there is property dispute between Rajesh Kumar & Vijay Kumar who are real brothers and civil matter is pending before Hon'ble court since 2019.
Hence from the enquiry conducted so far the present matter seems to be a property dispute between brothers which is a civil matter and no police action is needed and hence present application may please he disposed off accordingly. However, the undersigned is willing to abide by any directions/orders passed by the Hon'ble court Report is submitted please. ***"
CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 5 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:32:07 +0530 (Emphasis supplied) 2.4. 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 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 19.07.2024/impugned order inter alia under the following observations;
"*** Essentially the allegations as per the applicant is that on 16.10.2023, the applicant happened to visit property in question, where he was shocked to see that the locks were removed and the property was allegedly trespassed and theft of all goods and items was committed. Further the property had been let out to a tenant on huge rent. The applicant took photographs of the premises and made video from his mobile phone. In view of the above, the applicant has prayed for registration of FIR under appropriate sections of law. It is further mentioned that the matter was reported to the police but of no avail and thus the present compliant was filed. ATR filed by the IO, wherein it is stated that the dispute in question is a family dispute between applicant and his brother. Civil matter is also pending between both parties in Civil Court since year 2019. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the applicant/complainant and have gone through the record as well as perused the report.
In M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi), it was held that:*** *** *** *** The court is supposed to order investigation keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Subh Karan Luharuka & Anr Vs. State & Anr 2010(3)*** *** *** *** From perusal of record, it can be seen that the though the matter prima-facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence, i.e., pertaining to house trespass/house breaking but the facts & circumstances of the matter are such which do not require investigation by State Machinery by issuing a direction for registration of FIR against the respondents because the identity of alleged accused CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 6 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:32:12 +0530 is already ascertained, who is stated to be real brother of applicant. Further, no facts are needed to be unearthed as the same are well within the knowledge of the complainant/applicant, custodial interrogation of alleged accused is not necessary, the evidence is well within the reach of applicant/complainant & no assistance of police is required to gather the same and the facts of the case are not such that would warrant a detailed and complex investigation to be carried out by the State Agency.
Hence, there is no need for investigation by the police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C in this case. Application is hereby dismissed.
However, the cognizance of the offence is taken and applicant/complainant is at liberty to lead pre- summoning evidence. In case, assistance of police is required, resort can always be had to provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Put up for PSE on ***"
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist 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 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 and passed the impugned order, whimsically, ignoring the material facts. As per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court erred in dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., without passing a speaking order and without considering the prima facie offences, committed by respondent no. 2 in the instant case. It was further vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel that though CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 7 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:32:16 +0530 the Ld. Magistrate under the impugned order had, itself observed that the facts of the instant case prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences pertaining to house trespass/house breaking, however, in the same breath, the Ld. Trial Court erroneously recorded that the facts and circumstance of the case are such, that do not require investigation by the State machinery, by directing registration of FIR against respondent no. 2. Correspondingly, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court committed blatant irregularity by observing that since the identity of the accused was known, no facts needed to be unearthed and that the same are well within the knowledge of the revisionist. Ergo, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court erred in dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on such extraneous considerations, which is palpably specious and unsustainable.
3.1. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court 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 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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.
CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 8 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:32:20 +0530 Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider underlying principle under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., i.e., if the Magistrate believes after preliminary inquiry, that the information does constitute a cognizable offence then the Magistrate can use its powers/discretion to direct registration of FIR by the concerned police officials as well as to investigate the same. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that in the facts of the instant case, statements of the tenants were required to be recorded, besides, investigation was necessary to recover the articles, which were stolen by respondent no. 2, with the aid of tenants/trespassers. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that only the police machinery is equipped to conduct a thorough inquiry/investigation into how the forced entry was affected by respondent no. 2, in blatant violation of law and theft, committed. 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 documents, materials and evidence in the instance case, necessary to unearth the real truth in the instant case. Ld. Counsel further reiterated in this regard that it is only the police 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. 3.2. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld. Trial Court erred in not properly appreciating the necessity of 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 no. 2, which is crucial for the recovery of the CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 9 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:32:24 +0530 evidence and statement. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the ATRs, filed by the police officials before the Ld. Trial Court were completely silent with respect to the investigation conducted qua the tenant. In this regard, it was further submitted that a scrupulous analysis of the ATRs would demonstrate that the concerned police officials did not even make endeavor to ascertain the details of the tenants or even visit the place of occurrence. As per the Ld. Counsel, in the facts of the instant case, interrogation/statement of the tenants/occupants are vital pieces of evidence. However, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court erroneously overlooked material aspects in the case and passed the order dated 19.07.2024/impugned order, in utter haste and in contravention to the legal provisions as well as settled judicial dictates. 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 156(3) Cr.P.C only on the failure/refusal of the police official to entertain a criminal complaint. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held, in a routine manner that the revisionist is in possession of entire evidence and that he can produce the witnesses by himself or through court, despite the fact that the police officials are duty bound/obligated to procure and preserve the relevant evidence in support of the complaint filed by the revisionist and make the case of the revisionist sound enough not only technically, but also scientifically. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the police officials were further duty bound to collect the material evidence in the light of the fact that the revisionist had informed about the happening of CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 10 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:32:29 +0530 cognizable offenses within time to the police station in its jurisdiction. 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. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 1; Harshendra Kumar v. Rebatilal Koley, (2011) 2 SCR 670; Vijayander Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1297/2004, dated 11.02.2014 (SC); Jitendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 Latest Caselaw 2127 (Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court); and Hussain Zaidi @ Guddu v. State of U.P., 2024:AHC:112062-DB.
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 Court. It was further submitted that no irregularity, impropriety, or incorrectness can be attributed to the impugned order, which was/were 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.
4.1. Notably, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, while supplementing the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, submitted that the allegations of the revisionist that respondent CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 11 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:32:35 +0530 no. 2 has committed the offence of trespassing of the premise stands rebutted on several relevant factors. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the revisionist deliberately concealed the fact that the entire premise belonged to Late Sh. Sultan Singh, which was admitted on the part of the revisionist. Correspondingly, it was asserted by the Ld. Counsel that Late Sh. Sultan Singh bequeathed the premise to respondent no. 2 by virtue of registered Will dated 21.09.2016 and the revisionist failed to bring forth on record, any document, during the course of suit proceedings to demonstrate his ownership/possession of the premise. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 averred that the revisionist deliberately failed to disclose the factum of dismissal of revisionist's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908/CPC in case bearing; Rajesh Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, CSDJ/554/2019, wherein the Ld. District Judge, inter alia observed that the factum of possession of the premise was in dispute and that unless the initial possession of the premise was proved, no finding on the interim relief could be reached. Correspondingly, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that the instant petition/proceeding has been initiated by the revisionist with a malafide intention to overwhelm respondent no. 2 with multitudinous proceedings/disputes in a vindictive manner. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further fervently argued that the revisionist has deployed the tactic of filing several proceedings, one after another against respondent no. 2, solely to harass the said respondent.
4.2. Even otherwise, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that the revisionist, with ill-motive in CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 12 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:32:39 +0530 endeavoring to give the dispute between the parties a criminal colour, with a sole objective to harass respondent no. 2. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further asserted that the revisionist is maliciously trying to rope respondent no.2 in ill-motivated criminal proceedings, solely to harass the revisionist, demonstrable from the fact that the revisionist has failed to bring forth any cogent evidence to substantiate his allegation of trespass. Correspondingly, it was iterated by the Ld. Counsel that revisionist has filed the present case solely to illegally secure the possession of the premise, to the detriment of the right of respondent no. 2. In this regard, it was further asserted that respondent no. 2 is not a stranger to the property/premise in question. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, the premise in question belonged to the late father of the revisionist and respondent no. 2 and it only to persistently bother/pester the said respondent, instant proceedings were initiated by the revisionist. Even otherwise, it was averred that the revisionist has failed to demonstrate even prima facie illegality under the impugned order, necessitating any interference/indulgence by this Court. Ergo, it was strenuously contended that the present petition deserves to be outrightly dismissed as amounting to gross abuse of process of law. In support of the said contentions, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 placed reliance upon the decisions in; Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 393/2024, dated 06.01.2025 (SC); and Google India Private Limited v. Visakha Industries & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 350.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 and that of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 have been heard as well as the CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 13 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:32:44 +0530 records, including the Ld. Trial Court records as well as the case laws/written submissions placed on record, 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, in particular that under law/ Section 438 BNSS1, 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.
*** *** *** (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.
1Pari 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. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 14 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:32:49 +0530 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 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."
CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 15 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:32:53 +0530 (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)
10. Notably in the context of the foregoing, it is further apposite to observe the settled law3 that in the case where the criminal complaint, filed before the Magistrate, discloses commission of a cognizable offence upon scrutiny, two courses 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. 3 Satyamuni Verma v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Ors., MANU/DE/0704/2014.
CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 16 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.10.13
15:32:57
+0530
are open to the Magistrate. Under such circumstance, such magistrate may opt to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and proceed to inquire into it in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. In the alternate, such magistrate may refer the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, wherein magistrate 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. 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 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. CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 17 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:33:03 +0530 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. 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. 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 CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 18 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:33:07 +0530 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 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 CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 19 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:33:11 +0530 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 & Ors., MANU/DE/4659/2023, summarized and reiterated the principles governing 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.
(iii) 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 156(3) Cr.P.C. entails adoption of a CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 20 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:33:16 +0530 cautionary approach4, 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 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 & Ors., MANU/DE/0043/2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court noted in unambiguous terms that 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. 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 4 Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, (2023) 14 SCC 1. CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 21 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:33:21 +0530 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, by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, this Court observes that from the 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 complaint as well as revisionist's entreaty seeking registration of FIR and police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., various action taken reports/status reports 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 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 no. 2 is already known to the revisionist; facts and allegations levelled against respondent no. 2 are already within the knowledge of the revisionist, not necessitating unearthing of any facts by means of police investigation; evidence and material of the alleged occurrence, CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 22 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.10.13 15:33:26 +0530 are well within the reach of the revisionist, including the photographs as well as the videography, collected by the revisionist himself at the premise, and even the custodial interrogation of the accused/respondent no. 2, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not required at the present case. Needless to mention, the Ld. Trial Court has not dismissed the complaint of the revisionist in its entirety. On the contrary, as aforenoted, by means of impugned order, Ld. Trial Court merely dismissed the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 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. qua disputed facts at necessary stage, if so required.
17. Ergo, in the considered opinion of this Court, being circumspect of the facts and circumstances as well as the judicial dictates and arguments hereunder noted, in the considered opinion of this Court, registration of FIR at this stage in the instant case, would 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 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 police investigation and registration of FIR/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in light of the facts and circumstances, CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 23 of 24 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13 15:33:31 +0530 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 19.07.2024, passed by Ld. JMFC-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing, 'Vijay Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Case No. 2485/2023', PS. Nabi Karim, dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., while listing the matter for pre-summoning evidence on the revisionist's complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 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
GOYAL Date:
2025.10.13
15:33:37
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 13.10.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR. No. 374/2024 Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page No. 24 of 24