Delhi District Court
Raminder Kaur vs State on 18 July, 2025
Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024
IN THE COURT OF MANU GOEL KHARB:
SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS-02: (SOUTH WEST),
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.: 2297/2024
CNR no. DLSW01-011459-2024
E filing no. ADL20240004366C202400014
Raminder Kaur
W/o sh. Jaspal Singh Anand
R/oC-1/111, 1st Floor,
Janak Puri, New Delhi-110083
.....Revisionist
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Maninder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Surinder Singh Anand.
3. Smt. Davinder Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Surinder Singh Anand
Both R/o C4C/51, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
4. Ms. Jatinder Marwah
Advocate
R/o J-3/22, 1st Floor,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
......Respondents
Date of Institution of the revision : 26.11.2024
Date of Arguments : 18.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition under section 440 Cr.P.C. (New Section under section 440 BNSS) has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the court of Sh. Harjot Singh Aujla, Ld. JMFC-11, South West District, Dwarka Page no. 1 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024 Courts, New Delhi, wherein Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application under section 156(3) Cr.PC filed by the revisionist in Ct Case no. 217/2022 titled as Raminder Kaur Vs State & Others.
2. By way of present revision petition, revisionist seeks to set aside and quash the impugned dismissal order dated 27.08.2024 in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Revisionist in the present case was the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court and respondent no. 2 to 4 were the proposed accused. For the sake of convenience, they shall be addressed by the same nomenclature as before the Ld. Trial Court.
4. The facts of the complaint as mentioned in the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 are reproduced as under :-
"2. In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that the complainant gave cheques to her nephew Mr. Maninder bearing no. 904860 to 904870 each of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the MOU executed between the complainant and the respondent no.2 dated 25.03.2018 as the respondent had got registered an FIR bearing no. 98/18 u/s 420/406/34 IPC at PS Janakpuri against the complainant. It is argued that the MOU was executed under pressure to secure the bail in FIR no. 98/18. It is alleged by the complainant that the cheques were given for an amount of Rs.1 lakh each but the respondent changed the numerical figures of the cheque bearing no. 904869 from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.17 lakhs and the cheque was presented for encashment. However, the same could not be honored due to insufficient balance in the bank account of the complainant. It is alleged that the false evidence was created with a view of filing a false litigation against the complainant with the sole purpose to cheat the complainant. It is on this basis that the complainant alleges the commission of offence under section 463/464/467/468/420/405/192 IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, revisionist preferred the present revision petition on the ground that Ld. trial court failed to consider the facts of the case and has passed the order based on Page no. 2 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024 surmises and conjectures. It is stated that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further stated that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the complainant gave cheques to her nephew Mr. Maninder bearing no. 904860 to 904870 each of Rs.1,00,000/- duly filled with figure only as per the MOU executed between the complainant and the respondent no. 2 dated 25.03.2018 as the respondent had got register as FIR bearing no. 96/2018 (98/18 wrongly mentioned by the IO in ATR) under section 420/406/34 IPC at P.S. Janakpuri against the complainant. It is further stated that respondent changed the numerical figures of the cheque bearing no. 904869 from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.17,00,000/- and the cheque was presented for encashment. It is further stated that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that complainant filed complaint with SHO on 29.10.2021 and to DCP West vide DD no. 15767/GDW. It is further stated that even the expert opinion obtained by the revisionist in respect of cheque in question, suggest forgery on the amount in cheque (figure) in question. It is further stated that as per ATR dated 15.07.2022 filed by the Enquiry Officer SI Ravi Narwal, the respondent no. 2 and 3 were interrogated and they disclosed that they duly filled the cheque in question which was only signed by Raminder Kaur. It is prayed that impugned order dated 27.08.2024 may be set aside.
6. Notice of the revision petition was served to Ld. APP for the State and respondents nos. 2 Maninder Singh, respondent no. 3 Davinder Kaur and respondent no. 4 Jatinder Marwaha and thereafter arguments were heard.
Page no. 3 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024
7. Section 397 Cr.P.C. provides the powers of revision upon the Sessions Court and High Court. The relevant portion of Section 397 CrPC reads as under :-
" (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; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
(2).................."
8. The revisional jurisdiction of the court can be exercised only when there is a palpable error or non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Reliance placed on (Amit Kapoor Vs Amit Chander (2012) IX SCC 460).
9. With the aforesaid guidelines in mind, the court shall now proceed to deal with the facts of the present case.
10. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is reproduced as hereunder:
"156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one Page no. 4 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024 which such officer was no empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned."
11. In Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the nuances of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at length and had laid down certain guidelines for exercise of this power. The relevant observations read as under:
"22. The questions which arise for consideration are:--
(i) How and when powers under Section 156(3) of the Code are to be exercised by the Metropolitan Magistrate?
(ii) Whether the complaint instituted under Section 200, the order dated 1.7.2005 passed under Section 156(3) of the Code and also the FIR No. 436/2005 dated 6.8.05 of PS Defence Colony New Delhi registered pursuant to the aforesaid order, are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code in the peculiar facts of this case?"
12. While exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directing the registration of an FIR, the Magistrate needs to ensure that a cognizable offence is disclosed from the allegations mentioned in the application and the essential elements of the alleged offences thereof are prima facie satisfied. It is no more res integra that power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously and direction for registration of FIR is to be given only after due application of judicial mind. Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 observed that power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. warrants application of judicial mind.
Page no. 5 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024 " At this stage, it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is admitted that a complaint case bearing no. 32119/2021 under section 138 NI Act is filed by the respondent no. 2 Maninder Singh against the petitioner herein due to dishonour of cheque bearing no. 904869 for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. The petitioner herein has taken the ground in this petition that the figure in the abovementioned cheque has been manipulated by the respondent no. 2 to 4, in connivance with each other, by changing the figure '1' to '17' thereby changing the amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.17,00,000/-.
14. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to order police investigation in a case which involves a cognizable offence and it is a mechanism for initiating the investigation when the police does not register FIR but FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable to prove the defence of a party in a case under section 138 N I Act. In cases under section 138 N I Act, the complainant has to discharge the initial burden of proof regarding issuance of the cheque, its dishonour and failure of the drawer to pay within a stipulated time after receiving demand notice and after the initial burden is discharged, the onus shifts on the accused to show that cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability or that the cheque was altered Page no. 6 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024 without the consent of the accused or other defences available to the accused.
15. It is alleged by the petitioner that the figures have been changed from 1 to 17. First and foremost, if there had been any overwriting on the cheque in question, the cheque would have been dishonoured for a different reason i.e. cutting/ alteration/ overwriting rather than insufficiency of funds. In general, the banks do not process checks with alterations or corrections as it raises concerns about the authenticity of the cheque unless and until the issuer of the altered cheque communicates with the bank regarding the alteration made. Moreover, the petitioner can also prove the said defence by moving appropriate application in the complaint case pending against him for sending the cheque to FSL expert opinion. It appears that by way of filing the present petition, petitioner is merely trying to pressurize the respondent to settle or withdraw the case under section 138 N I Act rather than leading appropriate defence to rebut the presumption of liability.
16. I have gone through the order of Ld. Trial Court and in my considered opinion, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order of Ld. Trial Court. It has rightly been observed that the evidences are within the reach of the petitioner and he can himself procure the same. Admittedly, both the parties are known to each other and no field investigation is required.
17. In light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court Page no. 7 of 8 Raminder Kaur Vs State & Ors CR no. 2297/2024 and the order of Ld. Trial Court is upheld and the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
18. Trial Court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor court alongwith a copy of this judgment.
19. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed MANU by MANU GOEL KHARB GOEL Date:
2025.07.18 KHARB 17:34:40 Announced in open Court today +0530 18.07.2025 (MANU GOEL KHARB) SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)-02 DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI Page no. 8 of 8