Delhi District Court
Sudesh Chhikara vs Chaina Devi on 15 May, 2025
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 325/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-004590-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sudesh Chhikara
W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
R/o B-128, Ganesh Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018
Temporarily at:
T-94, DLF Capital Greens,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 ....Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Chaina Devi
W/o Baljeet Singh
R/o B-128, Ganesh Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15
16:45:06 -
0100
CR No. 325/2023 Page No.1 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
2. Anita Dahiya
W/o Balbir Singh Dahiya
R/o 385/27, Gali No.2,
West Ram Nagar, Sonepat, Haryana
3. Sunita
W/o Suresh Sejwal,
R/o F-13, Village Lado Sarai,
New Delhi-110031
4. Baljeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh
R/o B-128, Ganesh Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 29/05/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 28/04/2025
Date of judgment : 15/05/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:12 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.2 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionist against the order dated 28/02/2023 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, Ld. MM-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1174/2017 titled as "Sudesh Chhikara V. Baljeet Singh & Ors."
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to call the Trial Court record and to set-aside the impugned order dated 28/02/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court to the extent of dismissal of the complaint qua respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 and to direct the summoning of respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 as accused for the offence u/s 420 IPC r/w section 120-B IPC.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that by way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 28/02/2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court to the extent that the complaint u/s 407/420/120-B IPC filed by the revisionist was dismissed against respondent no. 1, 2 & 3. Respondent no.4 is only a proforma respondent as he has been summoned as an accused vide impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court and no relief has been sought against him. The revisionist Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:18 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.3 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
was the owner of the property No. B-51/B measuring 50 sq. yards being part of Khasra No. 9/2, in the area of village Matiala, Delhi abadi, now known as Sainik Nagar, Delhi-110059 (hereinafter referred to as 'property in question'), which was a built up property when it was purchased by the husband of the revisionist on 24/02/2008 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,20,000/-. Husband of the revisionist has died on 19/10/2010 in very unfortunate circumstances. After the death of husband of the revisionist, respondent No. 1 to 4 have conspired to usurp the properties of the revisionist and her son and with the object to achieve their goal, they started pressuring and persuading the revisionist to sell property in question on the pretext that the property was at a distance from the residential house and might be illegally occupied by some one and at the same time assured that another property near to the house in the name of revisionist or her son shall be purchased from the sale proceeds. Revisionist, being dependent upon the respondent No. 1 and 4, having a minor son to take care of and no independent source of income, ultimately succumbed to the pressure and reluctantly agreed to sell the property in question. Property in question was ultimately sold to one Sudarshan Kumar S/o Sardar Kartar Singh R/o B-145, Sainik Nagar, Delhi-110059 for a consideration of more than Rs.15 Lakh on 24/02/2011. The sale transaction was handled solely by the respondent No. 4 and all negotiations were done by him and the entire sale Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:24 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.4 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
consideration was received by him. No property in the name of revisionist or her son was purchased from the sale proceeds despite respondents no. 1 to 4, all reminded of their assurances. Revisionist was not given a single rupee from the sale proceeds of property in question. In pre-summoning evidence, complainant had examined herself as CW-1 and 3 other witnesses were examined including CW-2 Ram Chander and CW-3 Joginder Singh, the property dealers, who facilitated the sale transaction and both witnessed the documents executed by the revisionist relating to the property in question. Vide impugned order, respondent no.4 Baljeet Singh was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 420 IPC but complaint of the complainant/revisionist was dismissed against the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 have played no role in the execution of the documents relating to the sale of the property in question and no money or share in and out of the sale consideration was received by said respondents. Impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from illegality and same is contrary to settled law and is liable to be set-aside. Revisionist has not filed any other proceedings challenging or related to the impugned order in any Court.
3. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15
16:45:32 -
0100
CR No. 325/2023 Page No.5 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
Grounds of revision- Ld. Trial Court has acted with illegality in side- stepping the established law relating to conspiracy to commit an offence by insisting on the individual acts amounting to an offence independently, ignoring the law that each and every person, who is party to an agreement to commit an illegal act, is liable as the alleged illegal act is done by each of them. Ld. Trial Court while insisting that respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 have played no specific role in execution of sale transaction or that there were no allegations of any of them, having received any money share in the sale consideration, has totally ignored the part of examination of the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court, where she deposed that all the four respondents immediately after the death of her husband started pressurizing the revisionist to sell property in question and also assured the revisionist that from the sale proceeds, another property near to the house shall be purchased in the name of the revisionist or her son. Ld. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the direct evidence to prove the conspiracy is rarely available and the same has to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of each of the conspirators, which is relevant for proving the existence of conspiracy as well as an accused being party to the conspiracy. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that once respondent no. 1 to 4 are found to be acting in pursuance of the conspiracy to cheat the revisionist of her property, whether or not respondent no. 1 to 3 played any Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:38 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.6 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
role in execution of sale transaction, is immaterial and they can be roped as accused for the offence u/s 420/120-B IPC. Ld. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that receiving or not receiving of any money share in the sale proceeds by respondent no. 1 to 3 will not absolve them from culpability, once it is found that they were the conspirators along with respondent no. 4 and the revisionist has been cheated of her property, pursuant to the conspiracy.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for the respondents. 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 respondents that 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 28/02/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:44 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.7 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"28.02.2023 Present: None.
1. Vide the present order, the undersigned shall decide whether there is sufficient ground to summon proposed accused no. 1-4 in the present case.
2. As per the version of the complainant, the complainant was married to Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (son of accused no.1 and 2 and brother of accused no. 3 and 4). She has further deposed that her husband passed away on 19.10.2010 but before his death, he had purchased a property situated in Sainik Vihar in the name of the complainant. The complainant has submitted that after the death of her husband, her in-laws started pressurising her to sell the said property on the pretext that the said property is situated at a long distance from her residential house and the same could be trespassed by someone else. She has further deposed that her in-laws assured her that if she sells the said property, the in-laws will help her in purchasing a similar property closer to their residential home in Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar. While the complainant was hesitant to sell the said property, she yielded to the demands of the in-laws and signed on the sale documents. She has further deposed that transaction of the sale of property was witnessed by two persons namely Joginder Singh and Ram Chander.
3. The complainant has further deposed that after sale of the concerned property, she constantly reminded the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:49 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.8 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
accused persons of their promises and assurances to purchase a similar property in her name or in the name of her son Virat but the accused persons started making excuses stating that the prices were very high and they will purchase a property for her when the property prices come down. The complainant has further deposed that she was later evicted from the residential house and all her belongings were loaded in a tempo and unloaded in front of the play school which was being run by the complainant and it became clear to the complainant that she had been deceived into parting with her property by her in-laws. The complainant has further deposed that she was not given even a penny from the sale proceeds by the accused persons.
4. The complainant also summoned Joginder Singh (CW3) and Ram Chander (CW2) who exhibited the will in evidence by which the property was sold by the complainant to a person named Sudarshan Kumar. The witness Joginder Singh also deposed that the payment in relation to the purchase was made in cash and the said payment was received by accused no. 1 Baljeet.
5. Lastly, the complainant summoned the current owner of the property in question (CW4), who exhibited the chain of documents by which the property was transferred to the current owner.
6. Thereafter, PSE was closed, and the matter was listed for arguments on the point of summoning.
7. Arguments were heard on 28.10.2022 and 23.11.2022 and order was reserved for today. I have gone through the file and have perused the material on record.
8. It is pertinent to note that the CW Joginder Singh, who was a witness to the transaction, has specifically deposed Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:45:55 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.9 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
that the payment in relation to the purchase was made in cash and the said payment was received by accused no. 1 Baljeet. While usually, no oral evidence is allowed in relation to a transaction which is witnessed by a written document (in this case the will and the possession letter which records that the sale consideration has been paid to the complainant), however, proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Evidence Act allows oral statement/proof of such fact which would invalidate any document such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. In this regard, reliance may also be placed on Placido Francisco Pinto v. Jose Francisco Pinto, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 842. In this case, the complainant has specifically pleaded that a fraud has been played upon her since she was assured that if she cooperates in selling the concerned property (which was registered in her name), her in-laws will purchase a new property for her from the sale proceeds nearer to the residential house and accordingly, she signed on the sale documents blindly and let the accused take the proceeds from the sale of property. However, instead of purchasing any new property for her, the accused no. 1 kept the sale proceeds for himself and did not buy any new property for the complainant. Therefore, the oral testimony of the CW Joginder Singh is admissible to prove the fraud played upon the complainant.
9. Accordingly, a prima facie case of cheating u/s 420 IPC is made out against the accused no. 1 since based on the deposition of complainant and CW Joginder Singh, it appears that the accused no. 1 deceived the complainant into selling her property and the sale proceeds of the same Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:00 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.10 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
have been misappropriated by the accused no. 1 instead of utilising the same to purchase a new property for the complainant, as was promised.
10. Therefore, since a prima-facie offense is made out under section 420 IPC against the accused no. 1, let accused no. 1 be summoned subject to filing of PF within 15 days.
11.At the same time, no offense is made out against accused no. 2, 3 and 4 since there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against them based on the evidence that has come on record. The entire transaction of sale of concerned property was managed by the accused no. 1 and the other accused persons have not played any role in execution of the sale documents. Further, the money out of the sale transaction was also received by accused no. 1 and there is nothing on record to show that the sale proceeds were shared with the other accused persons.
Accused persons cannot be summoned on the basis of presumptions or assumptions. Accordingly, the present complaint stands dismissed qua accused no. 2, 3 and 4 under section 203 CrPC.
12.Relist for appearance of accused no. 1 Baljeet on 18.07.2023.
[DEVANSHU SAJLAN] MM-07/(West)/Delhi 28.02.2023"
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:05 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.11 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:10 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.12 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:15 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.13 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:22 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.14 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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 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 toDigitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:27 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.15 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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;
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; Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:33 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.16 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
(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 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:38 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.17 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:44 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.18 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:49 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.19 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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 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.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:54 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.20 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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 the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:46:59 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.21 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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."
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:06 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.22 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 28/02/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court only to the extent that the complaint of the complainant was dismissed qua accused no. 2, 3 & 4 (respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 herein) u/s 203 Cr.P.C.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
After referring number of judgments, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Urmila Devi V. Yudhvir Singh." {(2013) 15 SCC 624} that order taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused is not an interlocutory order and criminal revision against the same is maintainable.
Hence, in view of the law laid down in Urmila Devi case (supra), it is clear that criminal revision is maintainable against the order of cognizance and summoning/not summoning of the accused.
10. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision petition on merits.
The parameters for taking cognizance and summoning order have been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "State of Gujarat V. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta" {AIR 2019 SC 2499} Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:11 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.23 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
and it was held that :-
"22. In so far as taking cognizance based on the police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating Officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the Investigating Officer and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:17 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.24 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file. In the present case, cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC, the order for issuance of process without explicitly recording reasons for its satisfaction for issue of process does not suffer from any illegality.
37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex-facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sonu Gupta V. Deepak Gupta & Ors." {Crl. Appeal No.285-287 of 2015 decided on 11/02/2015} that :-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:22 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.25 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
"At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial."
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15
16:47:27 -
0100
CR No. 325/2023 Page No.26 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bhushan Kumar & Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr." {AIR 2012 SC 1747} that :-
"Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a pre-requisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Nagawwa V. Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi" {AIR 1976 SC 1947} that :-
"At the stage of issuing the process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of the inquiry under s. 202 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited -limited to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (1) on the materials placed by the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:32 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.27 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
complainant before the court (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process had been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In proceedings under s. 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standing and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not.."
11. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
The complainant (revisionist herein) had filed the complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s. 407/420/120-B IPC against the accused persons namely Baljeet Singh, Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita before the Ld. Trial Court. In pre-summoning evidence, complainant had examined herself as CW-1, Sh. Ram Chander as CW-2, Sh. Joginder Singh as CW-3 and Sh. Sushil Kumar as CW-4. Complainant/CW-1 in her testimony in pre-summoning evidence had reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of her complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. Complainant/CW-1 in her testimony had relied upon the documents i.e. copy of GPA executed by Lakshmi Devi Mark-A and copy of Will dated 24/02/2011 Mark-B. In the testimony of CW-2, Will dated 24/02/2011 was exhibited as Ex.CW-2/A. CW-4 in his testimony has deposed regarding documents i.e. copy of GPA Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:37 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.28 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
dated 28/02/2011 executed by Sudesh in favour of Sudershan Kumar Ex.CW-4/A, copy of agreement to sell dated 28/02/2011 executed by Sudesh in favour of Sudershan Kumar Ex.CW-4/B, copy of affidavit of Sudesh dated 28/02/2011 Ex.CW-4/C, copy of possession letter dated 28/02/2011 of property in question executed by Sudesh Ex.CW-4/C, copy of receipt Ex.CW-4/E, copy of registered Will dated 24/02/2011 executed by Sudesh in favour of Sudershan Kumar Ex.CW-2/A, copy of GPA dated 07/04/2011 executed by Sudershan Kumar in favour of Manju Ex.CW-4/F, copy of affidavit dated 07/04/2011 executed by Sudershan Kumar Ex.CW-4/G, copy of Will dated 07/04/2011 executed by Sudershan Kumar in favour of Manju Ex.CW-4/H, copy of receipt dated 07/04/2011 Ex.CW-4/I and copy of possession letter dated 07/04/2011 executed by Sudershan Kumar in favour of Manju Ex.CW-4/J. Vide impugned order dated 28/02/2023, order on summoning was passed and accused Baljeet Singh was summoned for the offence u/s. 420 IPC and complaint of the complainant was dismissed qua accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita u/s 203 Cr.P.C. Now, the matter is fixed for pre-charge evidence before the Ld. Trial Court.
12. Briefly stated the case of the complainant as mentioned in his complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. is that the complainant is the daughter-in-law of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:44 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.29 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
accused Baljeet Singh and Chaina Devi and accused Anita Dahiya and Sunita are sisters-in-law of the complainant. Husband of the complainant has expired on 19/10/2010. During his life time, husband of the complainant has purchased the property in question on 24/02/2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.6,20,200/-. After the death of husband of the complainant, accused persons started persuading and pressurizing the complainant to sell the property in question stating that the property was at the distance from the house and others could trespass and take over the possession. Accused persons have assured the complainant that from the sale proceeds of the property in question, another property in the name of the complainant shall be purchased near the house. Since, after the death of her husband, the complainant was under shock and also for the sake of future of her son, she gave her consent to sell the property in question and the property in question was sold to Sudershan Kumar for the consideration amount of more than Rs.15 Lakh on 24/02/2011. Entire transaction relating to sale of property in question was handed by accused Baljeet Singh and he was actively assisted by accused Anita Dahiya and Sunita. Accused Baljeet Singh got prepared a cheque of Rs.15 Lakh from the buyer in his own name and he had also got part of sale consideration from the buyer in cash but the said amount is not known to the complainant. Complainant was completely kept out of the negotiations of sale of property in question by the accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:49 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.30 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
persons. Transaction dated 24/02/2011 was witnessed by Joginder Singh and Ram Chander. On 24/02/2011 at the time of execution of documents at the office of Sub-Registrar, the complainant had asked Ram Chander about the sale consideration, who informed that a cheque of Rs.15 Lakh and balance amount in cash had been given to accused Baljeet Singh. Thereafter, the complainant reminded all the accused to purchase a new property in her name or her son but they continued to make false excuses of price being high and that new property will be purchased later as prices were likely to come down. Complainant had not got a single rupee from the sale money of property in question. Complainant has already instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.40 Lakh against the accused Baljeet Singh and same is pending. Complainant came to know about the conspiracy of accused persons to usurp the property of the complainant and her son when on 12/08/2015, accused Baljeet Singh, Chaina Devi and their daughter Vanita removed the belongings of the complainant and her son from the house no. B-128, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi and unloaded the same from tempo in front of C-33, Mansa Ram Park, Delhi, where, the complainant was running a play school. Thereafter, the complainant had made the complaint to SHO, PS Tilak Nagar on 10/08/2016, however, the police refused to investigate the matter stating that it was a dispute over money and no police action was called for. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:47:55 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.31 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
13. As per complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, all accused persons have persuaded and pressurized the complainant to sell property in question and the complainant sold the property in question and the sale consideration amount was kept by the accused Baljeet Singh and the said amount was not given to the complainant and all accused have cheated the complainant.
In the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and testimony of complainant/CW-1, all the allegations have been specifically made against the accused Baljeet Singh. Complainant in her complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has stated that the entire transaction relating to the sale of property in question was handled by accused Baljeet Singh. Complainant/CW-1 in her testimony has deposed that the sale consideration amount of property in question was received by the accused Baljeet Singh. CW-2 in his testimony has deposed that the property was sold by the complainant and accused Baljeet Singh jointly. CW-3 in his testimony has deposed that accused Baljeet Singh had come for negotiations towards sale of property and Baljeet Singh had received the cash on sale of property. Even in the present revision petition, it is mentioned by the revisionist that the sale transaction was handled solely by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Baljeet Singh and all negotiations were done by him and the entire sale consideration was received by him.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15
16:48:00 -
0100
CR No. 325/2023 Page No.32 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
In the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and testimony of complainant/CW-1, there is no specific allegation of cheating against the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita. In the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and testimony of complainant/CW-1, it is not specified as to in what mode and manner, accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita had committed the offence of cheating. Entire complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and testimony of complainant/CW-1 are silent in this regard. No specific role has been attributed to accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita regarding cheating. The only allegation against the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita is that they have persuaded and pressurized the complainant to sell the property in question. There is nothing on the Trial Court record to show that the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita have received or shared the sale proceeds of the property in question or they were beneficiary of the same in any manner. There is no documentary evidence against the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita to show that they have any specific role in cheating.
On perusal of the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as testimonies of complainant witnesses, it is clear that allegations against the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita are general and omnibus in nature. There is no documentary evidence on Trial Court record to substantiate the allegations of the complainant against the accused Chaina Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:48:05 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.33 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita for the offence u/s 407/420/120-B IPC.
It is well settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, has to see as to whether a prima-facie case has been made out for taking cognizance and summoning the accused. It is also well settled law that the accused cannot be summoned only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations as well as unsubstantiated assumptions and presumptions. For the purpose of cognizance and summoning the accused, there should be sufficient incriminating material available on record. There is no incriminating/sufficient material available on Trial Court record for the purpose of summoning the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita. Prima-facie no case for the offence u/s. 407/420/120-B IPC is made out against the accused Chaina Devi, Anita Dahiya and Sunita for the purpose of summoning them.
14. 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 V. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:48:10 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.34 of 36 Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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.''
15. It is well settled law that the Revisional Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court and the Revisional Court will interfere only, if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored settled principles of law.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
16. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the case laws Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.15 16:48:16 -0100 CR No. 325/2023 Page No.35 of 36
Sudesh Chhikara V. Chaina Devi & Ors.
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:
2025.05.15 16:48:21 -
Announced in the open Court 0100
on 15/05/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 325/2023 Page No.36 of 36