Delhi District Court
Gaurav Chhibber vs State on 15 July, 2025
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 615/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-008920-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Gaurav Chhibber
S/o Sh. S.K. Chhibber
R/o 16, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(through SHO, PS Moti Nagar, New Delhi)
2. Saurabh Bhambi,
S/o Arvind Bhambi
R/o M5/D3, Jhulelal Apartments,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034 .... Respondents
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15
17:11:03 -
0100
CR No. 615/2023 Page No.1 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Date of institution of the revision petition : 02/11/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 11/07/2025
Date of judgment : 15/07/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionist against the order dated 24/11/2022 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Shagun, Ld. MM-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in complaint case No. 1029/2021 titled as " Gaurav Chhibber V. Saurabh Bhambi " thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant (revisionist herein) was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to call the Trial Court record and to set-aside the impugned order dated 24/11/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to direct the SHO/IO, PS Moti Nagar to register the FIR against the accused u/s. 420/468/471 IPC.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionist is the proprietor of M/s Ezee Flights Travel and he is in the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:12 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.2 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
business of providing tours and travel services across the country. Respondent no.2 was introduced to the revisionist by a common friend Amitabh Kant in the year 2018. Respondent no.2 had introduced himself as the owner/partner of various salons located throughout Delhi & NCR. In the month of January 2019, respondent no.2 had requested the revisionist for a friendly loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) in cash as he urgently required it to renovate one of his salons in Delhi and he assured to return the said loan within eleven months. On 18/01/2019, revisionist had given Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Only) in cash to the respondent no.2 at his office 20 A, II Floor, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 in the presence of Amitabh Kant. After receiving the said amount, respondent no.2 kept visiting the revisionist on regular basis but since the beginning of December, 2019, respondent no.2 started avoiding meetings, calls or texts from the revisionist. After a lot of persuasions and discussions, respondent no.2 had agreed to return Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) within 90 days and issued post-dated cheques for remaining amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh only). Revisionist considered his request and executed a Memorandum of understanding dated 20/12/2019 and it was agreed that in case, the respondent no.2 fails to make the payment in time, respondent no.2 would transfer his 50% partnership share of his salon namely Ash & Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:18 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.3 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Niel Unisex Salon at B-2/5, Jankapuri, New Delhi-110058. Revisionist repeatedly requested the respondent no.2 to return his hard earned money, however, respondent no.2 did not pay any heeds to return Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) as per MOU/Agreement or transferred his 50% share in Ash & Niel unisex salon. On enquiry with other partners of Ash & Niel Unisex Saloon namely Yashasvi Talwar, revisionist came to know that respondent no.2 was not even a partner of Ash & Niel unisex salon or any salon. Respondent no.2 had shown forged partnership deed at the time of taking loan from the revisionist. Revisionist also came to know that respondent no.2 had defrauded several other persons by showing himself as the owner/partner of various salons in Delhi and NCR. Since all the cheques issued by the respondent no.2 were dishonoured, revisionist left with no other option but to lodge a complaint dated 11/07/2021 with PS Moti Nagar and thereafter, on 11/09/2021 before the DCP (West) for commission of cognizable offences by respondent no.2 but till date, no action has been taken against respondent no.2. Due to the inaction on the part of the police, revisionist had filed the complaint u/s. 200 Cr. P.C along with application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the aforesaid application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 24/11/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Revisionist has not filed any such or similar petition either before this Court or before Hon'ble High Court.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15
17:11:24 -
0100
CR No. 615/2023 Page No.4 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
3. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. Grounds of revision- Impugned order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the averments made by the revisionist against the respondent no.2 regarding not returning the amount of Rs.31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh only). Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the police investigation is required for the purpose of ascertaining the fact that the respondent no.2 had misrepresented himself as the owner/partner of Ash & Niel Unisex Salon and produced a forged partnership deed in an attempt to deceive the revisionist. Ld. Trial Court has not recognized the fact that the investigating officer failed to investigate Yashasvi Talwar, with whom the respondent no. 2 entered into a partnership to start a salon business. Therefore, the investigation of Yashasvi Talwar is crucial as he is a key witness regarding the alleged funds transferred from the revisionist. Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the revisionist has made a complaint with respect to the cognizable offence and accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have issued necessary direction u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the accused/respondent no.2 for thorough and proper investigation of the case.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15
17:11:30 -
0100
CR No. 615/2023 Page No.5 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State/ respondent no.1 and Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 24/11/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"24.11.2022 Present: None.
1. Vide this order, the application of complainant u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is being disposed of. The complainant filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith the present Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:34 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.6 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that accused person has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant thta accused name, Saurabh Bhambi introduced himself as a person working in helath and wellness industry running salon in different parts of Delhi in the capacity of owner/ partner. It is further alleged by the complainat that on request of accused person in January, 2019, he extened the friendly loan to the sum of Rs.31,00,000/- for the purpose of renovation of one of his salon. Thereafter, the complainant has made repeated requests to the accused to return his money, however, the acucsed has made excused and finally told the complainant that he will return Rs.20,00,000/- within 19 days from the date of execution of MOU and in case of failure, he will transfer parternship share of 50 % in one salon and further issued certain post dated cheques, the said agreement is dated 20.12.2019.
2. It is further alleged by the complainant that at the time of disbursement of friendly loan amount accused projected himself to be the owner and partner of different salon across Delhi having high fixed earning by showing serveral documents. It is further alleged by the complainant that at the time of execution of MOU/agreement accused had shown his parternship deed in his name of B2/35, Janakpuri Salon and said salon run under hte name and style of Ash & Niell Unisex Salon. It is further alleged by the complainant that after execution of MOU, complainant requested the accused to make the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- or transfer parternship. It is further alleged by the complainant that when he made written complaint to PS Moti Nagar, the accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:39 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.7 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
contacted the complainant over phone that he will pay monthly installment of Rs.15,000/- which was declined by the complainnt as it would have taken years to settle the loan amount.
3. Status report was called from the SHO of PS concerned. As per the status report, the IO has submitted that one Amitabh Kant before whom the money is stated to have been paid has stated that no money was paid by the complainant to the accused. It is further submitted by the IO that the accused and complainant have started the business of salon and executed an agreement between themselves and the complainnat has made payment of Rs.47,00,000/-, out of which Rs.34,00,000/- was made through account transfer, Rs. 12,00,000/- through cheques and remaining amount were paid in cash. It is furhter submitted by the IO that the alleged persons denied the allegations of complainant and stated that some transactions were pending between the complainant and accused. It is further submitted by the IO that accused is ready to pay an amount of Rs 12,00,000/- to the complainant.
4. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case is a mandate only for the police who are bound to register FIR on facts disclosing thecommission of a cognizable offence. The said judgment is not a mandate upon the Court to necessarily direct register of FIR in every such matter. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. uses the word "may" and therefore, gives a discretionary power to the Court. From the facts of the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the assistance of investigating agency is Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:45 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.8 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
not required in the present case for the collection of evidence. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that the complainant is in possession of entire evidence as he knows the accused persons, further the complainant can produce the witnesses, by himself, or through the Court. Thus, it does not appear to be a case where the police assistance is required for the purpose of collection of evidence. Further, if in future, any need would arise, police assistance can be taken U/s 202 Cr.P.C. None of the evidence in the present case is beyond the reach of the complainant. Accordingly, the present application u/s 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.
5. However, on the facts alleged in the complaint, I take cognizance and give an opportunity to complainant to prove his allegations. The complainant is called upon to bring pre-summoning evidence on 07.04.2023.
(SHAGUN) MM-04: West: THC: Delhi 24.11.2022"
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:50 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.9 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
7. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:11:56 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.10 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:01 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.11 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
8. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr." {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:07 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.12 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the proceedings would continue; Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:12 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.13 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. V. Fazru" {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus:
"An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:17 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.14 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:22 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.15 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour.
Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said:
(K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11) "11. ..... It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:27 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.16 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:33 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.17 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Neelam Mahajan & Anr. V. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 24/11/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant was dismissed.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:39 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.18 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Nishu Wadhwa V. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr." {WP (CRL 1253/2016 and Crl. MA No.6591/2016 decided on 10/01/2017} that "therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable".
Hence, the present revision petition qua the dismissal of the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
10. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision petition on merits.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 24/11/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant was dismissed.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss law relating to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The scheme of Cr.P.C. is such that an Officer In-charge of a Police Station has to initiate investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the first information report, on receiving the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:44 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.19 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
information of the commission of a cognizable offence. From the plain reading of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., it is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is made before an officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form to register a case on the basis of information pertaining to cognizable offence. But when the police officers do not register a case disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and complaint in this regard is made to the Magistrate, then under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. ' may ' order investigation. The expression used herein is ' may ' and not ' shall ' or ' must '. The expression ' shall ' or ' must' implies that the provision is mandatory and expression ' may ' gives discretion to the Magistrate.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Devarapalli Lakshinarayana Reddy V. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors." {AIR 1976 SC 1672} that:-
"It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words " may take cognizance" which in the context in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:49 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.20 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
which they occur cannot be equated with "must take cognizance". The word " may " gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
This raises the incidental question: What is meant by "taking cognizance of an offence" by a Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190? This expression has not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and marginal heading of Section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The ways in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted and the nature of the preliminary VIJAY SHANKAR Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR Date: 2025.07.15 17:12:54 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.21 of 35 Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V. State" {2001 IV AD (DELHI) 625} that :-
"A Magistrate must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.'' Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:12:59 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.22 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as "Gulab Chand Upadhyaya V. State of U.P." {2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 514} that :-
"The scheme of Cr. P. C. and the prevailing circumstances require that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised. Where some "investigation" is required which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant, and which can only be done by the police upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, for example:-
1 Where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or 2 Where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or 3 Where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence is required to be collected and preserved. To illustrate by example, cases may be visualized where for production before court at the trial (a) Sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident, or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:05 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.23 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, or (d) preparation of inquest report, or (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Pawan Verma V. SHO, PS Model Town & Ors." {2009(2) JCC 1000 Delhi}, that:-
"It is not that in every case merely on the asking of the petitioner the Court must direct registration of an FIR unless the Court is satisfied with the preliminary evidence which is to be submitted by the complainant with an FIR must be registered..........".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Mohd Salim V. State" {175(2010) DLT 473} that :-
"The use of the expression may in Sub- section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that the 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:10 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.24 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:14 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.25 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Mohd. Yusuf Khan V. State & Anr." {2014 (3) JCC 1665} that :-
"The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in a routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set into motion on the mere asking of a party.....'' It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Kusum Lata V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {Crl. MC No.1880/2020 decided on 19/04/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"it is clear from the scheme of section 156, where the police fail in its duty to register and investigate a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person may file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Where the Magistrate receives a complaint the word 'may' give a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. Two courses are open to the Court; either take cognizance under Section 190 or may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:19 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.26 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
particular case, Magistrate may take cognizance on the basis of the complaint instituted before him and may adopt the procedure provided under sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. and if there is no substance in the prima facie evidence adduced by the complainant, the complaint may be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
In view of above facts, observation made by the courts below and the law discussed, the material facts of the present case are well within the knowledge of the petitioner including the identity of the accused persons. Hence, she can establish her case while leading evidence before the trial court under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellant Court".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Anjuri Kumari V. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {WP (CRL) 1210/2023 and CRL. M.A.11298/2023 decided on 29/11/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:23 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.27 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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."
11. After referring the Lalita Kumari case (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ramdev Food Products Private Limited V. State of Gujarat" { AIR 2015 SC 1742} that :-
"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 :
(2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed:
11. The scope of Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:28 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.28 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Procedure came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case : (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, though 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). Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:35 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.29 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
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 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."
12. The criminal complaint of the complainant/ revisionist u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. is pending before the Ld. Trial Court for pre-summoning evidence.
In the ATR/status report filed by SI Manjeet Singh before the Ld. Trial Court, it is mentioned that:-
"It is further submitted that enquiries have been made in this regard and it is found:-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:40 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.30 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(a) That Yashasvi Talwar and Saurabh Bhambi were known to each other as they were residing in the same locality i.e. Rani Bagh, Delhi.
(b) Ambitabh Kant was known to Yashasvi Talwar.
Therefore Yashasvi Talwar introduced Amitabh Kant to Saurabh Bhambi.
(c) That Gaurav Chibber was also known to Yashasvi and used to visit him. Yashasvi Talwar also introduced Gaurav Chhibber to Saurabh Bhambi and Amitabh Kant. Therefore, all the four i.e. Yashasvi Talwar, Amitabh Kant, Saurabh Bhambi and Gaurav Chibber became known to each other/common friends.
(d) That Amitabh Kant, before whom the money is stated to have been paid by the complainant, has stated that in his presence no money was paid by Gaurav Chibber to Saurab Bhambi.
(e) Yashasvi Talwar could not be examined as he has gone abroad (Canada).
(f) That Saurabh Bhambi and Yashasvi Talwar had joined hands to start business of saloon. Therefore, they had executed an agreement between themselves to start/run a saloon for which Saurabh Bhambi paid Rs.47 lac to Yashasvi Talwar Pro M/S Star Saloon Pvt Ltd (34 lac through account transfer, Rs.12 lac through cheque and remaining was paid in cash).
(g) The alleged, upon interrogation, has denied having taken any friendly loan from the complainant and had never issud any cheque to Gaurav Chibber.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15
17:13:45 -0100
CR No. 615/2023 Page No.31 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(h) That upon interrogation the alleged person has further statd that Yashasvi Talwar had some transactions pending with Gaurav Chibber so the cheques given by him to Yashasvi Talwar were given by him to Gaurav Chibber.
(i) That the alleged has further stated that he has discussed the matter of Rs.12 lac with the complainant and he is ready to pay the same in instalments.
(j) That the complainant has provided a pen drive conaining some discussion with the alleged person. It is found that in the said Pen Drive there is conversation between complainant and alleged Saurabh Bhambi wherein the alleged is hard offering payment of loan in instalments of Rs.20 -25,000/- per month, which is declined by the complainant.
It is further submitted :-
(a) That the person in whose presence the loan is stated to have been given has stated that no money was given in his presence.
(b) The complainant has not provide any written/documentary proof of regarding payment of friendly loan.
(c) That as per rule payment of friendly loan of Rs.31 lac cannot be made in cash.
(d) That if the version of the complainant is taken to be true he had given a friendly loan to the alleged person and by not paying the friendly loan no offence is made out.
It is further submitted that from the contents and enquiries made in this matter version of the complainant could not be substantiated. In any case if some transaction had taken Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:50 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.32 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
place it is related to money transaction between two parties, for which the complainant is at liberty to file a Recovery Suit. For dishonour of the cheques the complainant has already filed a case U/s 138 NI Act. No cognizable offence is made out. However, directions/orders of this Hon'ble Court Shall be abide by."
In the complaint case before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist/complainant has filed the photocopy of bank statement, photocopies of cheques, photocopy of return memos, photocopy of MOU/agreement, photocopies of whatsapp chats and one CD stated to be containing voice recording.
Filing of the photocopies of the aforesaid documents and CD shows that all the documentary evidence are within the reach and knowledge of the revisionist/complainant and nothing is to be collected for which the assistance of the police is required.
Complaint case u/s 138 NI Act for the dishonour of cheques already stated to be filed by the complainant/revisionist against the accused/respondent no.2.
In view of the above, it is clear that the parties are ascertained. The facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the revisionist/complainant. There is nothing for which the police assistance is additionally necessary to be called for. The revisionist/ complainant is in a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:55 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.33 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
position to lead evidence in the matter. The evidence is within the reach of revisionist/complainant and no custodial interrogation of accused is necessary for recovery of article or discovery of fact.
13. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr." {AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 687} that :-
"The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C. 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.'' Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15 17:13:59 -0100 CR No. 615/2023 Page No.34 of 35
Gaurav Chhibber Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
14. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the case laws referred by this Court, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.07.15
17:14:04 -
Announced in the open Court 0100
on 15/07/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 615/2023 Page No.35 of 35