Delhi District Court
Dhiraj Makhija vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) (EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 135/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dhiraj Makhija
S/o Sharwan Kumar
R/o 417, Jheel Kuranja,
Delhi-110051 ...Revisionist
Versus
1. State of (NCT) of Delhi,
Through SHO, PS Preet Vihar ...Respondent No.1
2. Kamal Kishore Kapoor,
S/o Gurbuksh Singh Kapoor,
R/o G-9, Sagar Plaza Building,
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre,
Delhi-110092.
Also at:- R/o Flat No.904,
Tower No.15, Commonwealth Village,
Delhi-110092 ...Respondent No.2
Instituted on : 16.05.2025
Reserved on : 04.10.2025
Pronounced on : 13.11.2025
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the court of Ld. ACJM(East)/KKD, Delhi whereby the application u/s 175(3) BNSS made by respondent no.2 seeking registration of FIR against revisionist was allowed and SHO, PS Preet Vihar was directed to initiate investigation.
ANURAG Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR 22:17:24 +05'30' Date: 2025.11.13 Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 1 of 11
2. The order has been assailed inter-alia on the grounds that the same has been passed (i) without application of judicial mind, (ii) in stark contravention to the settled position of law, (iii) in violation of principles of natural justice, (iv) in disregard of the ATR filed by the police and (v) on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It has been strenuously argued by the ld. counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order mentions that there is no dispute in so far as the signature of the respondent no.2 Kamal Kishore Kapoor on the promissory note are concerned and the revisionist committed no illegality even if he filled up the blanks in the promissory note. He also stated that the promissory note was filed in case titled as 'Dhiraj Makhija vs. Kamal Kapoor' CC No.2769/24, which is pending disposal before the competent court. He further adumbrated that ld. ACJM failed to take into account Section 20 of the NI Act. He prayed that the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
3. Reply to this petition was not filed by the respondents but written arguments were filed on behalf of respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 argued that the impugned order is absolutely correct in terms of facts, law and procedure. Respondent no.2 claimed that the crimes committed by the revisionist and his associates are evident from the contradictory, illogical, false story of loan availed and the video footage etc. It is alleged by respondent no.2 that the promissiory note was forged on a blank signed paper and the signatures on the promissory note are forged. Numerous extracts have been cited from different ANURAG Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR 22:18:01 +05'30' Date: 2025.11.13 Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 2 of 11 documents to adumbrate that forgery had been committed. It is prayed by respondent no.2 that revision petition be dismissed being unmerited.
4. I have cogitated over the rival submissions and perused the case file as well as the TCR. My observations on the issues agitated are delineated hereinafter.
5. While deciding the application u/s 175(3) BNSS, the ld. trial court observed as under:-
6. It is the case of the complainant that the proposed accused persons had cheated the complainant and done forgery. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the accused persons had forged the Promissory Note by using the blank signed paper of the complainant. The said Promissory Note is dated 08.09.2022, however in the Legal Notice sent by accused no. 01 to the complainant dated 14.10.2024, it is found mentioned that accused no. 01 had paid Rs. 5.2 Lacs on 06.09.2022 and thereafter within month of September 2022, the accused no. 01 had paid Rs. 30 Lacs in cash to the complainant at regular intervals, then how the said Promissory Note was executed on 08.09.2022 whence till 08.09.2022, the said amount has not been paid by accused no. 01. The complainant has also annexed the Whatsapp Chat of accused no. 01 dated 12.03.2024 and 06.04.2024 showing the balance of Rs. 21 Lacs. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also filed the investigation report in the complaint filed by the accused no. 01 against the complainant in which it is mentioned that the allegations levelled by the accused no. 01 against the complainant are afterthought and concocted in nature and the accused no. 01 had received more money then he paid to the complainant.
7. The Court Prima facie believe that cognizable offence has been committed which needs to be investigated after formally registration of FIR. Therefore, SHO PS Preet Vihar is directed to initiate the investigation on the complaint of complainant after formally registering the FIR.
It is exceedingly clear from perusal of this order that the ld. trial court read the promissiory note dated 08.09.2022 in conjunction with legal notice sent by revisionist to respondent no.2 on 14.10.2024 and found discrepancy in language and facts mentioned in those two documents.
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 3 of 11 Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.11.13 22:18:34 +05'30' Learned trial court also relied upon the Whatsapp Chats between revisionist and respondent no.2. It also took note of the report filed by police in the case filed by revisionist against respondent no.2, which concluded that the revisionist had received more money than he paid to the respondent no.2.
6. This Court had the opportunity to look at the original promissory note (as record of 138 NI Act case filed by the revisionist was requisitioned by this court). The notice dated 14.10.2024 has also been perused. It is worthwhile to note that the same is digitally signed by only the counsel for the revisionist and not by revisionist himself. Much has been made about the words 'and thereafter within the month of September 2022 itself my client paid you monies in cash at irregular intervals' in the legal notice and the date of the promissory note i.e. 08.09.2022. Isolated whatsapp chats of the year 2024 have also been considered by the ld. trial court to reach a conclusion that a case for investigation is made out. Not only this, the action taken report filed in the case (before the learned trial court) was not believed, rather the trial court chose to rely upon the report made in the case filed by revisionist against respondent no.2. It is not out of place to mention that the ATR relied upon by the trial court was not qua the allegations made before it by respondent no.2 and it was regarding counter allegations made by revisionist against respondent no.2. It also be kept in mind that the parties had entered into multiple transactions with each other on different occasions in different financial years. Not only this, even the family members of the parties seem to have given money to each other's families, so it is extremely imprudent and unsafe to pick and choose few Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 4 of 11 Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR 22:19:03 Date: 2025.11.13 +05'30' words from one place and few parts of chats from other place to reach even a prima facie conclusion.
7. The conclusion that cognizable offence has been committed was reached by the trial court on the basis of analysis of photocopy of promissory note allegedly forged by the revisionist. The logic given by the trial court seems to be that the date till which loans were advanced by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 is after the date of the promissory note. At this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of S.Gopal vs D.Balachandran, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1300 (MAD.); wherein it held as under:-
6. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows:-
"Inchoate stamped instruments-- Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder."
A bare reading of section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments act would go to show that it would apply to only a stamped instrument viz., pronote and bill of exchange and not to the cheques. As per section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder in due course has every authority to complete the blank pronote and bill of exchange delivered to him after properly signing therein by the maker of the instrument..........
7. This court in RAJENDRAN v. USHA RANI (2001-LW (Crl.) 319) has observed that no law prescribes that in case of any negotiable instrument, the entire body of the instrument shall be written only by the marker or drawer of the instrument.
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 5 of 11 Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.11.13 22:19:30 +05'30' ..................................
12. Following the aforesaid ratio, this court has also held in P.R.RAMAKRISHNAN v. P.GOVINDARAJAN ((2007) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1297 that when the accused disputes his signature in the cheque in question in a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court has to afford an opportunity to the accused to obtain an expert's opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the signature found therein. The above ratio will not apply to a case where a cheque admittedly signed by the drawer is sought to be analysed by an expert for opinion as to the age of the ink used in the cheque.
It is not illegal for a blank signed negotiable instrument to be delivered by one person to another. It is equally lawful for the holder (person to whom that negotiable instrument is given) to fill-up the blanks in the same by virtue of Section 20 of NI Act. Also, a negotiable instrument can be given for security purpose. And if a negotiable instrument is given for security purpose then the same can be filled by the holder on the date when the debt crystallizes. It is equally permissible to issue a promissory note for a future debt. The promissory note claimed to be forged, can also be one such inchoate instrument given by respondent no.2 to revisionist for a present as well as future debt.
8. In the complaint made by respondent no.2 before trial court, he alleged that revisionist and his associates committed offence(s) of cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement, house-trespass and attempt to commit house-breaking etc. Except cheating and forgery all offences occurred at premises of respondent no.2. At this juncture, it is apposite to advert to judgment of High Court of Delhi in case of Anjuri Kumari vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 1210/2023 & CRL.M.A 11298/2023 decided on 29.11.2023; wherein it observed as follows:-
ANURAG Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR 22:19:56 +05'30' Date: 2025.11.13 Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 6 of 11
12. In M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State, 2001 IVAD Delhi 625" in para 6 and 7 it has been observed as under :
Para-6: Chapter XII of the Code deals with information to the police and its power to investigate the offences. Section 156 of the Code included in this chapter speaks of the power of the police officers to investigate cognizable cases and sub clause (3) thereof lays down that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of Code may order such an investigation.
Chapter XV of the Code deals with complaints to a Magistrate and the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence. This chapter provides an alternative as well as additional remedy to a complainant whose complaint is either not entertained by the police or who does not feel satisfied by the investigations being conducted by the Police.
Para-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 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled " Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
13. In "Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. Vs. State, III(2003) DLT (Crl.) 194" wherein it has been observed as follows :
"52A. 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
.................................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 Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 7 of 11 Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.11.13 22:20:23 +05'30' 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."
14. In Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0286/2015, appellant sought directions for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. However, Magistrate instead of directing investigation as prayed, thought it fit to conduct further inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and sought report of the Police Sub-Inspector within 30 days. Grievance of the appellant before the High Court was that in view of the allegation that documents had been forged with a view to usurp the trademark, which documents were in possession of the accused and were required to be seized, investigation ought to have been ordered under Section 156(3) of the Code, instead of conducting further inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. In Ramdev (supra), Supreme Court considered Latika Kumari and in paras 20 and 22 held as under:-
"20 It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation Under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K.Aiyappa MANU/SC/1002/2013:
(2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed:
11. The scope of Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [MANU/SC/7923/2007 : (2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction Under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter Under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, should be reflected in the order, through a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra)."
"22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that the direction Under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 8 of 11 ANURAG Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR 22:20:50 +05'30' Date: 2025.11.13 by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra) may fall Under Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case."
..............................................
16. In Mohd. Salim vs. State 175(2010) DLT 473, a learned Single Judge of this court, in para 11, has held thus:-
"11. The use of the expression "may" in Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that power conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by the Police even if the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does not require investigation by the Police and can be proved by the complainant himself, without any assistance from the Police. In that case, he may, instead of directing investigation by the Police, straightaway take cognizance of the alleged offence and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses, if any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the Police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code. Of Course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation of which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an Digitally signed application seeking investigation by the Police." ANURAG by ANURAGTHAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.11.13 22:21:20 +05'30' Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 9 of 11
17. In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the directions for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code cannot be given by the Magistrate mechanically. Such a direction can be given only on application of mind by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. Each case has to be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved therein. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police. In the present case, all the facts and evidence are within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can adduce during the inquiry conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code. All evidence/material qua allegations of worngful confinement, criminal intimidation, house-trespass, cheating and attempt to commit house- breaking is either available with respondent no.2 or can be easily produced by respondent no.2. So far as the issue of forgery of promissiory note is concerned, it is worthwhile to mention that witnesses have signed on the promissory note and they can be summoned and examined by respondent no.2 in order to show what all was written in the promissiory note at the time when the same was signed by those witnesses and whether the respondent no.2 had signed on the promissory note in their presence or not. By examining experts, respondent no.2 should also be able to show whether blank paper has been subsequently converted into a promissiory note and whether any signature of the respondent no.2 had been forged on the paper containing promissory note or not. Even for this purpose, investigation by police is not required.
Digitally signedANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.11.13 22:21:56 +05'30' Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 10 of 11
9. The documentary proof regarding financial transactions between the respondent no.2 and revisionist would anyways be available with him. Moreover, it is case of respondent no.2 that the blank signed page was given to revisionist. Now the revisionist has filed the promissiory note (allegedly made on that blank signed page) in a cheque dishonour case. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in presuming that a document given to one person and produced by that person remained with him all the time and any illegal alteration in the same was made by that person only. Even if all the allegations levelled by the respondent no.2 are taken at face value, still investigation by the police is not required for collection of evidence. Also, assistance of police can nevertheless be taken by respondent no.2 should such a need arise by taking resort to section 225 BNSS (as the respondent no.2 has made a complaint u/s 223 BNSS). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside as the same is not in consonance with the law laid down by the superior courts. Respondent no.2 may pursue his complaint u/s 223 BNSS.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. TCR be also sent back within three working days. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 13th November, 2025 ANURAG ANURAG Digitally signed by THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2025.11.13 22:22:34 +05'30' (Anurag Thakur) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This order consists of 11 pages and each and every page is signed by me.
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 11 of 11