Delhi District Court
Praveen Jain vs Vijay Tandon Etc on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-015916-2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 597/2023
SHRI. PRAVEEN JAIN,
S/o. Late Sh. S. C. Jain,
R/o. 184, 2nd Floor, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110055. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SHRI. VIJAY TANDON,
R/o.D-58, Sector-27,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
Also at; 9005A, Multani Dhanda,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110055.
2. STATE (NCT OF DELHI),
Through APP.
3. SHRI. KRISHAN LAL,
S/o. Shri. Mela Ram,
R/o. 2849, Gali No. 5,
Chuna Mandi, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055,
Also at; 9005A, Multani Dhanda,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110055.
4. SHRI. MEHAR TANDON,
S/o. Shri. Surender Tandon,
R/o. 63/6, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi,
Also at; 9005A, Multani Dhanda,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110055. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 03.11.2023
Date of Institution : 04.11.2023
Date when judgment was reserved : 15.04.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 10.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Sections CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 1 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 16:59:23 +0530 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), seeking setting aside of the order dated 05.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05/Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. MM/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing, 'Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon, Ct. Case 1569/2022' , 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, taking cognizance of the offence(s), on the basis of the complaint filed by the revisionist and listing the matter for Pre-Summoning Evidence/PSE.
2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the initiation of the present proceedings, as enumerated under the instant petition are that as per the revisionist, he was running his business under the name and style, 'Pardeep Corner', having its registered trademark, 'Amritsari Chur Chur Naan', operating from shops bearing nos. 9005-9006, Chowk Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Delhi-110055 (hereinafter referred to as 'shop no. 9006'). As per the revisionist, the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4/accused persons (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent/accused persons') along with their other associates/co-conspirators are running a dhaba under the name and style, 'Kashmir Sweet Shop', situated at shop no. 9005A, Chowk Multani Dhandha, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 (hereinafter referred to as 'shop no. 9005A'). It is further the case of the revisionist that the respondents, in furtherance of their conspiracy and while acting in collusion/connivance with other, in order to scam the government CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 2 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 16:59:27 +0530 authorities, cheat the revisionist and, to create hindrance to the peaceful operation of the revisionist's business, forged/fabricated/created a duplicate sale deed of the revisionist's shop no. 9006, and thereby obtained, various licenses for their eatery shop, electricity connection and other license(s), permission(s), etc., on the said address. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, for running his business, the revisionist also obtained trademark, 'Amritsar Chur Chur Naan', however, the respondents, in order to achieve their nefarious designs, even tried to lay claim over the web address/Intellectual Property Right/IPR of the revisionist's business. As per the revisionist, the said fact came to the attention of the revisionist on 08.08.2021, when the revisionist received an email from Google business that 'Mehar Tandon c/o. Kashmir Sweet Shop ' had requested for ownership access of 'Amritsar Chur Chur Naan', running operating at shop nos. 9005-9006. However, as soon as the revisionist became aware of the said fact, he immediately confronted the respondents and he was assured that the said issued word by sorted out, with the return of usurped portion of the revisionist's shop to him. Concomitantly, as per the revisionist, he was guaranteed that the respondents would rectify their error, however, to no avail. On the contrary, as per the revisionist, he was threatened that the respondents would damage the revisionist's reputation as well as, file false cases against him to harass them. The revisionist further avowed that against the alleged illegal acts of the respondent, the revisionist filed numerous complaints before various authorities, including the SHO, PS. Nabi Karim. However, no action was taken by the concerned police officials. On the contrary, it is the revisionist's CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 3 of 35 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 16:59:31 +0530 case that upon inquiry, he came to know that in the year, 2016, one, Shri. Navin Pal Singh Bhandari, erstwhile/previous owner of shop no. 9005A, had filed an eviction in respect of the said shop before the Ld. Rent Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in terms of the provisions under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') against M/s. Kashmiri Sweets, represented through respondent no. 1. However, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the matter got settled pursuant to order dated 08.01.2019 of the Ld. Rent Controller inter alia recording that the said property, i.e., shop no. 9005A had already been sold to Ms. Meena Tandon, wife of Kishan Lal Tandon, one of the partners of M/s. Kashmiri Sweets.
2.1. The revisionist further proclaimed that since inception, the aforesaid proceedings before the Ld. Rent Controller was pursued by the respondents and all the pleadings on behalf of M/s. Kashmiri Sweets were signed by respondent no. 1, clearly establishing his awareness of his ownership of shop no. 9005A and not that of shop no. 9006. However, despite the same, the respondents, as per the revisionist, continued to claim ownership right of shop no. 9006. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, distressingly, in the year 2021 the respondents, in connivance and conspiracy with each other got filed a civil suit for damages before the Ld. Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari, basing their claim on the alleged ownership of shop no. 9006, with an intention to obtain a decree/judgment, in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the revisionist. It was further reiterated by the revisionist that against the alleged illegal acts of the respondents, the revisionist filed CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 4 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 16:59:34 +0530 multiple complaints before numerous authorities, including complaint dated 05.11.2020 before SHO, PS. Nabi Karim, however, neither any action was taken by the police authorities on the revisionist's said complaint, nor any response forthcoming. Ergo, the revisionist was constrained to file an application in the provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act') inter alia seeking a copy of action taken report by the concerned police officials on the said complaint. In response, as per the revisionist, a reply to the said query under RTI Act was received by him/the revisionist on 02.02.2021, wherein it was determined by the revisionist that as per the enquiry conducted by SI Navdeep, respondent no. 1 had produced the papers pertaining to shop no. 9006, in his name. However, thereafter, the revisionist filed another complaint dated 24.02.2022, before the SHO, PS. Nabi Karim for the registration of FIR, against Sh. Surender Tandon and respondent no. 1. It was further avowed by the revisionist that while taking note of the complaint dated 24.02.2022, SI Sudhir of PS. Nabi Karim issued a letter to the Sub-Registrar's office, Daryaganj, requesting for a certified copies of sale deeds of shop nos. 9005A and 9006, whereupon, it was determined that shop no. 9006 was registered on 20.11 2015, in the name of the revisionist, whilst, shop no. 9005A was registered on 09.08.2018, as recorded under the eviction petition order dated 08.01.2019. Ergo, under such circumstances, the revisionist proclaimed that the respondents, forged and fabricated sale deed, purported to of shop no. 9006, and thereby, tried to profess himself as the owner of the said shop. Concomitantly, it is the revisionist's case that the respondents committed fraud, not only on the revisionist, CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 5 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 16:59:39 +0530 rather, also committed fraud upon various authorities in order to obtain licenses for their eatery shop, electricity connection and other license(s) permission(s), etc., besides, endeavoured to also hamper the revisionist's business by maligning the reputation of revisionist's business through illegal means. 2.2. It is further asserted on behalf of the revisionist that considering utter inaction on the part of the concerned police officials, despite the demonstration of commission of several cognizable offences, the revisionist moved the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. MM') by means of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and an entreaty for registration of FIR in terms of the provisions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Relevantly, the Ld. MM vide order dated 29.07.2022, directed the filing of action taken report/status report by the concerned SHO/IO, whereupon report was filed by/on behalf of the concerned SHO before the Ld. Trial Court on 06.02.2023, inter alia asserting as under;
"...During the course of enquiry, certified copies of property no. 9005A & 9006 were procured from the office of Sub-Registrar, Aruna Asaf Ali Road. From the reply thereof, it was found that sale deed of property no. 9006 was made on 18.11.2015 in favour of complainant Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain by first party Mr. Paramjit Singh acquired by the virtue of GPA regd. As no. 2696, in addl. Book no. IV, volume No. 2260, on pages 30 to 32 dated 17.04.1995. From the reply further, it was found that sale deed of property no. 9005A was made on 06.08.2018 in favour of Mrs. Meena Tandon w/o Kishan Lal & Mrs. Neelam Tandon w/o Surinder Tandon by vendor Mr. Naveen Pal Singh Bhandari self-acquired and regd. as document no. 5697, in addl. Book no. I, volume No. 8797, on pages 99 to 105 dated 13.07.1995.
It is stated that during further course of enquiry, a notice was served upon Department of Archives, Government of NCT of Delhi to provide certified copy of sale deeds/GPA and moreover a letter was CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 6 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 16:59:42 +0530 also issued to complainant Mr. Praveen Jain to provide some documents like ownership documents and licenses and incomplete reply of the same was provided.
It is pertinent to mention here that complainant in his present application repeatedly mentioned about civil suit no. 2156/2021 filed by alleged persons against complainant and alleged that they have tried to mislead the Hon'ble court by providing false information on affidavit and concealing material facts. In this regard, it is submitted that with such allegations complainant is standing at wrong place with the present application i.e. he should either file objection before the concerned Hon'ble court qua allegation or file this application before the jurisdictional court of PS Subzi Mandi. Moreover, it is submitted that both complainant and alleged are involved in similar kind of business and hence present application seems to be the outcome of unhealthy competition between the two business rivals.
Keeping in view of the above mentioned facts, it is stated that no cognizable offence is being found made out and hence the present application may please be filed. However, undersigned is abided by all the directions/orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in this matter..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Subsequently, upon the arguments being addressed by/on behalf of the revisionist as well as on consideration of the action taken reports/status reports, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the revisionist's prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 05.08.2023/impugned order inter alia under the following observations;
"...The present order shall dispose off the application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC, moved on behalf of the complainant.
*** *** *** For invoking the discretionary powers vested in this court as provided U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is to be seen as to whether from the facts before it, commission of a cognizable offence is made out or not and if so, requirement for any detailed investigation is made out or not, for which, nature of CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 7 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 16:59:45 +0530 the allegations being complex, police intervention is necessary.
Invocation of powers under such provision is to be made under circumstances of the kind, where either the accused persons are not easily known or are unknown altogether / where they can be nabbed only with the help of the police. If entire evidence seems to be already available with or within the control of the complainant, direction for registration of an FIR should not be given as a matter of course. In the present case, enquiry was conducted and ATR filed. On a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the ATR filed, it is seen that the gist of the allegations leveled against the proposed accused is seen to be one pertaining to delineation of shop premises located adjoining to one another and friction between both the sides on account of their rival claims qua the same, perhaps even stretching to a dispute with regards oneupmanship relating to similar food business / work being carried upon by them. On perusal of the averments made in the complaint under consideration, it is observed that the complainant purchased the subject property vide sale deed executed on 16.11.2015. Upon careful scrutiny of the case documents however, it can be seen that subsequent to the said date of purchase of the subject property, it has not been shown to the court with exactitude, as to what licenses were obtained by the proposed accused in relation to the same. As per the complaint documents, copy of such licenses so obtained by the proposed accused are placed as Annexure 3. However, such copies are seen to be in the name of one Krishan Lal and not specifically belonging to proposed accused Vijay Tandon. Moreover, such copies attached also do not clearly make it discernible as to what dates do such licenses pertain to. As such therefore, prima facie it is not clear as to the proposed accused having obtained any license using the property details of the complainant as alleged, subsequent to the complainant having bought such property. Considering the same, there seems to be something amiss with regards exact details of the properties involved in the dispute between the parties which is not satisfactorily established before the court so as to come to a prima facie view one way or the other. Further, the claim of the complainant that proposed accused must be proceeded against herein just because he is allegedly misleading various courts by filing frivolous cases against him is also not sustainable. This is so since CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 8 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 16:59:49 +0530 the complainant has ample remedies available to him as per law to refute such claims in the proceedings before the courts concerned themselves by putting forth his own version, based upon which rival claims can be judicially determined in favour of one of the parties. The same however cannot be used to launch separate prosecution herein. Apart from that, it is also seen that as per the site plan of the subject property as well the properties situated in the vicinity thereof, property no. 9006 and 9005A are located adjacent to each other. Additionally, the property no. 9005A, by its nomenclature itself, can be presumed to have been carved out at a later stage only. Ostensibly therefore, the dispute between the parties prima facie appears to be with regards defining of boundaries of such properties which per se has civil connotation. Superior courts have laid down from time to time that cases having a civil character essentially, must not be given a criminal colour to and the courts must be cautious about treading on such a path as criminal proceedings have grave consequences. The present factual scenario before the court also indicates towards such a dispute prima facie civil in nature with regards demarcation of boundaries of shops belonging to both the parties, Taking into consideration all such circumstances of the case therefore, this court is of the view that there are no favourable grounds for allowing the relief as sought. Even otherwise, it is seen that accused is known and his identity is not suspect. It that be so, requirement for police investigation as such is seen not to be made out. Evidence is largely documentary in nature and within the reach of the complainant. Given such a scenario as well therefore, no requirement for police intervention is seen to be made out for discovery of any evidence in particular. On these counts as well therefore, the present application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC does not merit being allowed.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances therefore, taken individually and collectively, the application in question is Dismissed.
Cognizance of the offences as mentioned in the complaint as against the proposed accused is taken. Complainant to lead pre summoning evidence. If any investigation is required, Section 202 Cr.PC can always be resorted to later.
Re-list for PSE on 18.12.2023..."
(Emphasis supplied) CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 9 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 16:59:53 +0530
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 holding that the facts of the present case, indicated towards the dispute being of civil nature, involving demarcation of boundaries of shops. However, as per the Ld. Counsel, the present case is a clear case of offences pertaining to cheating and forgery, committed/perpetuated by the respondent in connivance as well as conspiracy each other. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there cannot exist two sale deeds of the same property, and in case such sale deeds exist for corresponding period, one of the said documents must necessarily be forged and fabricated, attracting the provisions under Sections 465/467 IPC. It was further submitted that while passing the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the enquiry report, dated 20.12.2020 of SI Navdeep, wherein he had asserted that the respondent showed him/SI Navdeep, a sale deed in his/respondent's favour pertaining to shop no. 9006, whereas admittedly the said shop stood registered in the name of revisionist by virtue of a registered sale deed executed way back CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 10 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 16:59:57 +0530 in 2015. Ergo, as per the Ld. Counsel, under such circumstances, existence of another sale deed in possession of the respondent clearly demonstrates the commission of offences of forgery by the respondent. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the report of Sub-Registrar, submitted in response to letter issued by SI Sudhir, wherein it has been asserted that the sale deed pertaining to shop no. 9006, available on record, was executed way back in 2015 in favour of the revisionist. As a corollary, sale deed, asserted to be in favour of the respondent qua the same shop is forged and fabricated. 3.1. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that since the alleged sale deed, relied upon by the respondent is forged, by use of the same by the respondent for obtaining licenses from government authorities, the respondent has also made himself liable for the offences under Sections 420/468/471 IPC. As per Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the act/conduct of respondent in filing frivolous cases against the revisionist, on the basis of forged documents, is insufficient to proceed against the respondent, as the revisionist had ample remedies available to him under law to refute such claims. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the said finding of the Ld. Trial Court is not only antagonists to the settled law, rather, is of a nature, which if permitted to persevere, same would promote/encourage the anti- social elements of society to file false and frivolous claims. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that filing of false and frivolous cases on the strength of forged and fabricated documents is itself an offence, worthy of not only prosecution, rather, also of stringent punishment. As per the Ld. CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 11 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:00 +0530 Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court further erred in holding that the revisionist failed to show, from the record, as to what licenses were obtained by the respondent, subsequent to the purchase of property by the revisionist. In this regard, Ld. Counsel asserted that the revisionist was merely required to show that there existed certain licences, which were obtained by the respondent or his associates on the basis of the address of the revisionist's shop, on the basis of forged documents. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, any documents obtained on the strength of forged documents, though even prior to the date of purchase by the revisionist, would not absolve the respondent of his guilt. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the revisionist in his individual capacity, does not have the means to investigate, dig out, search and seize the documents/materials/licences illegally obtained by the respondent, post purchase of property by the revisionist. Correspondingly, in order to precisely determine the number and nature of licenses illegally obtained by the respondent and/or his associates against the revisionist's shop, a detailed investigation by police authorities is required, as it is only the police that 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 holding that the licenses placed on record were in the name of one Kishan Lal and not specifically belonged to the respondent. In this regard, Ld. Counsel asserted that while reaching the said conclusion, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the revisionist had placed on record, licenses obtained by the respondent, specifically in his name, which pertained to the CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 12 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:03 +0530 electricity/water connection, etc. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, Kishan Lal, admittedly being the partner of the respondent, all or any such licenses illegally obtained in the name of Kishan Lal stand clearly attributed to the respondent. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that since the properties of the revisionist (bearing no. 9006) and that of the respondent (bearing no. 9005A) are adjacent to each other, hence the dispute is with regard to defining of boundaries of such properties hence is of civil nature. However, as per the Ld. Counsel, the said finding of the Ld. Trial Court is per se erroneous as the dispute in the instant case is not with respect to defining of boundaries, rather, the same pertains to forging of false sale deed of the revisionist's shop by the respondent and his other associates to obtain licenses. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court even erred in holding that the present matter did not require any investigation by police authorities, as the identity of the accused/respondent was known to the revisionist or that the evidence was within the reach of the revisionist. On the contrary, it is only the identity of one of the accused persons i.e. Vijay Tandon, which is known to the revisionist, however, the identity(ies) of the other accused persons, who were a part of the conspiracy with the respondent in forging the documents in question or illegally using the same for personal gains needs to be ascertained, which can be only be determined by the police officials, after detailed investigation. Correspondingly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the forged sale deed, which was shown to SI Navdeep is not in the power and/or possession of the revisionist and in the absence thereof, the charges of forgery cannot be proved against the CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 13 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:00:07 +0530 respondent and/or his associates. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the revisionist does not have any knowledge as to what all places (i.e. private and government authorities), the respondent, while acting in connivance and conspiracy with his other associates, had used the forged documents in question and represented the revisionist's shop as his own, necessitating detailed investigation by police. Ld. Counsel further strenuously contended that considering that the offence of conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, the evidence qua the same is not and cannot be available with the revisionist and that the same can only be investigated by the specialized agency like Police. It was further submitted that there is prima facie case of cognizable offence of cheating and forgery at the instance of respondent and that the defence of the respondent cannot be considered by this Court at the stage of the revision. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of proper investigation regarding the forgery of documents, it would not be possible to unearth the actual truth in the present case. Nevertheless, as per the Ld. Counsel, there was prima facie material demonstrating malafide on the part of the respondent since the inception as the respondent tried to falsely claim ownership access of 'Amritsar Chur Chur Naan', running at shop no. 9005-9006 of the revisionist. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the respondent went ahead and even filed a false suit against the revisionist, professing/claiming themselves to be the owner of the revisionist's shop, besides, the respondent falsely represented before the Ld. Civil Judge, in DRC proceedings that their shop was numbered as 9006 and not 9005A. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the inquiry report of SI Navdeep, dated 20.12.2020, it has been specifically mentioned CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 14 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 17:00:10 +0530 that the respondent had shown the IO, SI Navdeep, a sale deed in their favour pertaining to shop bearing No. 9006. Ergo, as per the Ld. Counsel, existence of another forged sale deed in possession of the respondent proves that the said sale deed shown by the respondent to SI Navdeep was forged and fabricated. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel prayed 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 Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 2023 (arising out of SLP Crl No. 5883/2020, dated 08.08.2023) SC; and Sheela Sabastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Ors., AIR (2018) SC 2434.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State 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.
4.1. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, while supplementing the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, outrightly asserted that the revisionist is habitual in filing frivolous and bogus complaints against his competitors and that he has filed numerous complaints against the respondents on the various false issues. As per the Ld. Counsel, in the instant case, enquiry was conducted and an ATR was also filed by the CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 15 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:15 +0530 concerned enquiry officer/SHO, wherein it was determined that the dispute in the instant case pertained to the delineation of shop premises, located adjacent to one another and friction between both the sides on account of their rival claims qua the same. Even otherwise, Ld. Counsel submitted that initially, properties in question, i.e., shop nos. 9006 and 9005A belonged to one Shri. Bhandari, who was the original owner of the said properties and initially the entire plot was numbered under the Municipal records as; 9006, Multani Dhanda. As per the Ld. Counsel, the respondents were in occupation of said property since 1960, which was even admitted by the revisionist. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel strenuously contended that the respondents were operating their business in the said property since 1960, and recently, the revisionist started his business in the part property and due to same nature of business of, both, the revisionist and respondents, the revisionist filed the instant complaint with a sole intention to harass the respondents. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court correctly observed under the impugned order that the revisionist purchased the subject property vide sale deed, executed on 16.11.2015, however, subsequent to the said purchase, it has not been shown by the revisionist as to what all licenses were obtained by the respondents in respect of the property in question/shop no. 9006. Even otherwise, the copy(ies) of so called licenses placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court, as per the Ld. Counsel, are observable in the name of one Krishan Lal and not specifically belonging to respondent no. 1. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further fervently reiterated that the respondents were working in the said property since 1960 and all the documents filed by the revisionist CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 16 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 17:00:18 +0530 pertained to the year 1960, at which time, the said property was known/designated by its original Municipal No. 9006, Multani Dhanda Chowk. Ergo, Ld. Counsel submitted that the intention of the respondent is not malafide as he was working with the bonafide intention. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, as per the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415/417/420 IPC, it must be shown that there is some wrongful loss to the revisionist and wrongful gain the respondents. However, even as per the allegations of the revisionist, there is no iota of evidence, demonstrating even prima facie that there was ever a wrongful loss to the revisionist in the instant case or corresponding wrongful gain by the respondents. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, on the basis of some fanciful imagination/apprehension and solely to cause harassment to his competitor(s), the revisionist, filed the instant revision and complaint in question, endeavoring to give criminal colour to civil dispute. Ergo, Ld. Counsel entreated that the instant revision petition deserves dismissal as no ground or reason for any interference has been established by the revisionist herein, which was passed by the Ld. Counsel, wary of settled judicial precedents, laws as well as the facts of the present case.
4.2. Ld. Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that that revisionist alleged that the respondents fabricated/forged documents relating to shop no. 9006 and that the said documents were abused by the respondents to obtain licenses for their shop, 'Kashmir Sweet Shop', which argument, is not only baseless and devoid of merits, rather, also rests entirely on an illogical and absurd presumption. In this regard, Ld. Counsel outrightly asserted that the revisionist's said assertion is premised on an CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 17 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 17:00:22 +0530 assumption that the respondents, who had established and were operating 'Kashmir Sweet Shop' since 1960, conspired nearly six decades ago to fabricate property records with the extraordinary foresight that an unrelated third party/the revisionist, would eventually purchase an adjacent property in 2015; and that the respondents or their successors would later use the similarity in numbering between properties bearing shop nos. 9006 and 9005A to falsely claim ownership of the revisionist's property.
Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the revisionist's allegations are rooted in conjecture and fail to account for the historical evolution of property numbering and subdivision practices in Old Delhi. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, the respondents' acknowledgment that their property is now numbered as 9005A aligns with such changes over time and does not indicate any malafide intent or misconduct on the part of the respondents. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the revisionist's claims lack any factual foundation and are untenable in law as well as logic. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterated that the entire grievance of the revisionist hinges upon the dispute of numbering of the property and not on any substantive ownership or possession issues. Clearly, the issue/dispute between the revisionist and the respondents in the instant case, is essentially civil in nature and does not warrant any criminal proceedings. Ld. Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 further submitted that the property in question is located in Paharganj area, a region of Old Delhi, where historically large properties were assigned single numbers. However, over the time, as per the Ld. Counsel, the said properties were sub- divided, resulting into new designations and numbering schemes.
CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 18 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:00:26 +0530
As per the Ld. Counsel, the respondents' property was originally a part of property/shop no. 9006. However, following bifurcation, the respondents' shop was assigned number 9005A. Nonetheless, the respondents maintained their belief, in good faith, that their property was originally numbered as 9006, as reflected in older documents procured by their ancestors, dispelling any malafide or ill will on the part of the respondents. Further, Ld. Counsel strenuously reiterated that the revisionist failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the respondents forged documents or unlawfully procured licenses using the revisionist's property details. Clearly, such glaring absence of evidence, as per the Ld. Counsel, renders the revisionist's allegations completely baseless and speculative. Correspondingly, under such factual scenario, Ld. Counsel contended that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after meticulously analyzing the material placed on record as well as the factual circumstances brought forth, deserving no interference/indulgence by this Court.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 as well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 2, heard as well as the records, including the Ld. Trial Court records as well as the case laws/written submissions/written notes on arguments, placed on record have been thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the present case, this Court deems it apposite to outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law, in particular that under Section 397 Cr.P.C.1, as under;
1Pari materia to Section 438 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 CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 19 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 17:00:29 +0530 "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)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of parties, that too in a case(s) where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
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...."
CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 20 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:00:33 +0530 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."
(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, CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 21 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:37 +0530 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 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 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. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 22 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:00:40 +0530
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), MANU/DE/2618/2014, wherein the Hon'ble Court remarked in the context of the foregoing as under;
"7. 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.
8. 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.
In case Gulab Chand Upadhyay v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/1350/2002 : (2002) Crl.L.J. 2907, it was held that the use of the word "may" in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in contra distinction to the word "shall" in Section 154 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse registration of FIR..."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Correspondingly, earlier the Hon'ble High Court of CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 23 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:45 +0530 Delhi in Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, MANU/DE/0415/2001, 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 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd., (Supra.), catalogued the guiding principles and procedure to be followed while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., remarking as under;
"51A. For the guidance of subordinate courts, the procedure to be followed while dealing with an CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 24 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:48 +0530 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 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 CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 25 of 35 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:00:52 +0530 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 cautionary approach, 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 CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 26 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:00:55 +0530 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 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 CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 27 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:01:00 +0530 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, Ld. Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 2, this Court observes that from the facts and circumstances of the case, material and the documents placed on record of 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., action taken report/status report dated 06.02.2023 filed by/on behalf of the concerned SHO, and 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 persons/respondent nos. 1-2 is already known to the revisionist; facts and allegations levelled against the respondents are within the knowledge of the revisionist, not necessitating unearthing of any facts by means of police investigation; evidence and material are well within the reach of the revisionist; custodial interrogation of the accused persons/respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4, even in the considered opinion of this Court, is not required; besides, on a bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Ld. Trial Court, this Court unambiguously noted that the dispute CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 28 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10 17:01:04 +0530 between the parties prima facie appears to be with regards defining of boundaries of such properties which per se has civil connotation. Correspondingly, this Court further concurs with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that though, the revisionist asserts obtainment of licenses by respondents by deploying forged documents pertaining to the shop of the revisionist, however, the documents placed on record (Annexure-3) is grossly deficit to demonstrate any such endeavor on the part of the respondents herein. In fact, even this Court concedes that the copies of the said documents are seen to be in the name of Krishan Lal/respondent no. 2 and not specifically belonging to respondent no. 1. Pertinent to note and quite ominously, it is seen from the records of the Ld. Trial Court that the revisionist, under its complaint did not name Kishan Lal as one of the proposed accused and it was only subsequently, in the instant petition, the revisionist filed an amended memo of party introducing Kishan Lal and Mehar Tandon as respondent nos. 3 and 4, respectively. Correspondingly, it is observed from the records, in particular, from a scrupulous analysis of the documents/partnership deeds placed on record, that the same relates to appellate as early as 1960 in relation to shop no. 9006 wherein one Kishan Lal, Mela Ram and others have been shown as partners. Further, it is seen from the record that though the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has asserted that as per the report of SI Navdeep dated 21.12.2020, the respondent no. 1 is asserted to have shown the said police official a copy of sale deed pertaining to shop no.
9006, however, from a conscientious perusal of the said report, it is observed that the same nowhere mentions of a ' sale deed', rather of copy of deed. Here, this Court further deems it pertinent CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 29 of 35 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:01:08 +0530 to observe that it is in agreement with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court under the impugned order that simply because the respondents are asserted to have false claims before the concerned courts, same cannot be the reason for registration of FIR and that the revisionist is well within his right to recourse to appropriate legal remedies, as per law to refute such claims. Needless to further mention, the Ld. Trial Court did not dismiss 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 prayer/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, as also noted under the impugned order.
17. Another glaring factor in the instant case is that neither from the contents of the complaint nor the documents available on record of the Ld. Trial Court, or even from the accompanying affidavit filed by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist has been able to demonstrate, the compliance of the provisions under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before approaching the Ld. trial Court, with an entreaty for police investigation/registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as mandated under law. In fact, in this regard, reference is specifically made to reply regarding the Action taken Report dated 02.09.2022, placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court, wherein the concerned inquiry officer/SI Sudhir Yadav, noted as under;
CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 30 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:01:13 +0530
"...It is stated that in the present matter alleged was contacted who joined enquiry and has provided some documents which are being verified. Moreover, the complainant has also provided some documents which are also being got verified. There are no concrete evidences on record to file conclude inquiry. Therefore, it is requested that some more time may kindly be granted to complete enquiry and file ATR. It is pertinent to mention here that, before approaching the hon'ble court, complainant did not file complaint in the office of DCP central district which is violation of section 156 CrPC and hence raises question on the maintainability of present application. Hence, the present application may be dismissed.
Undersigned is ready to abide by all the directions/orders passed by Hon'ble Court..."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Clearly, it is seen from above that prior to agitating its claim before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist, did not comply/abide by the mandatory provisions4 under Section 154 Cr.P.C., disentitling the revisionist to claim indulgence in the facts and circumstances brought forth, even on this count. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the necessity and mandatory nature of the compliance under Section 154 Cr.P.C. inter alia, remarked, as under;
"...30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any 4 Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 252/2022, dated 18.02.2022.
CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 31 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10 17:01:17 +0530
responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
32. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR..."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Congruently, reference is made to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4313 of 2024, dated 06.03.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an akin context, while inter alia dismissing the direction for registration of FIR against the appellant (as before the Hon'ble Court), reiterated as under;
"7. The requirement of sub-Section (1) of Section 154 is that information regarding comm ission of a CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 32 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 17:01:20 +0530 cognizable offence has to be furnished to an officer Incharge of a Police Station. In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made. It is stated that the Inspector General of Police forwarded a complaint to the Economic Offences Wing. Sub- Section (3) of Section 154 comes into picture only when after a complaint is submitted to the Officer Incharge of Police Station or information is provided to the Officer Incharge of Police Station regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the Officer Incharge refuses or neglects to register First Information Report.
8. Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC are the two remedies available for setting the criminal law in motion. Therefore, this Court held that before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CRPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support. However, in this case, the second respondent did not exhaust the remedies. In this view of the matter, we find that both the learned Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava.
9. We, therefore, quash and set aside both the impugned orders and quash and set aside all the further steps taken on the basis of order dated 14th June, 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate..."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Correspondingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, being circumspect of the facts and circumstances as well as the judicial dictates and arguments hereunder noted, registration of FIR at this stage, in the instant case, would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be against all canons of justice, both on merits, as also on non-compliance of the provisions under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 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 CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 33 of 35 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.10 17:01:24 +0530 case, he can make it out by leading pre-summoning evidence. Needless to further mention that though 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 revisionist in the manner as prayed for the facts and circumstances of the said cases/dictates are clearly, distinguishable.
21. 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, 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 as devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Correspondingly, the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing, 'Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon, Ct. Case 1569/2022' , 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.
22. 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).
CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 34 of 35
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.07.10
17:01:28 +0530
23. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.10
17:01:32
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 10.07.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR. No. 597/2023 Praveen Jain v. Vijay Tandon & Ors. Page No. 35 of 35