Delhi District Court
Mandeep Singh vs State And Ors on 20 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
Cr. Rev: 325/2022
CNR No. : DLST01-008173-2022
Mandeep Singh
(Director Anant Sourcing Management Private Limited)
C-1/1483, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070 .........REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. State
2. Mudit Bansal
S/o Trilok Bansal,
R/o 236, Rajdhani Enclave,
Pitampura Vihar, North West Delhi,
New Delhi-110034
3. Naresh Aneja
H-7, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi.
4. Rajinder Kumar Aneja
H-7, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi.
5. Ms. Shruti Goel
Chartered Accountant,
with Membership No. 529393 and
Firm Regd No. 027256N
(address not available)
6. Mr. Udit Bansal
Chartered Accountant,
Membership No. 529392 and
Firm Regd No. 26356N
(address not available)
7. Mr. Avadesh Gupta,
Chartered Accountant
SPMG & Company,
101, Sagar Plaza-II,
Rani Bagh Commercial Complex,
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
Pitam Pura, PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20
New Delhi ........ RESPONDENTS 15:19:16
+0530
Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 1 of 19
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.09.2022
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 06.01.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall decide the criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, directed against order dated 19.07.2022 in complaint CT No.2015/2019, titled as 'Mandeep Singh Vs. State & ors.', whereby Ld. MM dismissed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking directions to SHO, PS Mehrauli, Delhi to register FIR and to investigate the matter.
2. The Ld. MM has noted the factual position as under:-
"2.1 The complainant and accused no. 2 were two directors of the company Anant Sourcing Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Which was incorporated in the year 2011. Complainant holding 45% shares of the company and accused no. 1 with 55% shares of the said company and till date sheresholding is the same. Role of complainant was to bring business and the accused no. 1 to infuse funds for working of the company. Company started generating huge profits within 3-4 years of incorporation due to hard work of complainant. The Balance Sheets, Profits & Loss account and other documents presented to the complainant and signed by him reflected good state of affairs of the company. A property in Sector -88, Noida, UP was purchased by complainant on behalf of company. The books of accounts of the company that were presented in the board Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 2 of 19 15:19:44 +0530 meeting and signed by complainant showed huge profits running into crosses of rupees. 2.2 As stated, till the year 2018, complainant was mainly working and accounts were solely handled by accused no. 2 who said to be professional chartered accountant ( as informed to the complainant). In March 2018, complainant sensed some mischief and sought books of accounts from accused no. 1, who informed that the accuses of the company are in the possession of accused no. 3 and 4. When accused no. 3 forwarded books of account to the complainant wherein it was noticed that the same were never signed and approved by the complainant rather the same had forged and fabricated books of accounts to which complainant raised objections which were sidelined. He was informed that correct accounts will be sent to him shortly, which were never sent. On 31.07.2018 also, a forged board resolution was passed whwerein accused no. 3 o 4 were appointed as directors of the company with complainant's forged signature as he never gave his consent for the same and no notice of such meeting was given to complainant.
He further stated that no such meeting ever took place and the same was prepared after September 2018 as accused no. 2 made some filing of the company in the month of January 2019 wherein a board meeting of the company was called to approved and adopt the audit report of the company. No notice dated 02.09.2018 was given to the complainant calling for a board meeting on 30.09.2018. The said resolution is in power and possession of accused no. 2,3,4 and 5 and have not been disclosed anywhere.
2.3 It is stated that a board meeting Digitally
signed by
held on 30.09.2018 shows that the board PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20
15:19:50
+0530
Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 3 of 19
resolution dated 31.07.2018 is antedated and has been passed after 02.09.2018 and a board meeting held at the address of the complainant and mentions the address of complainant as registered office of the company but no such meeting ever took place at his residence and even such board resolution has also been forged and fabircated by accused persons. 2.4 As per the complainant, he has also filed complaints before the institute of Chartered Accountant against all the chartered accountant who are indulged in making forged and fabricated reports in connivance with the accused no. 2 and 4. The books of accounts forged and fabricated are as under:-
i. Balance sheet and P&L account of 2016- 2017, 2015-16 and 2014-15 not signed by complainant along with other documents filed by one Ms. Shruti Goel (appointed by Naresh Aneja and Mudit Bansal) Membership No. 529393 and Firm regd no. 027256N.
ii. Balance Sheet and P&L account of 2013- 2014 not signed by complainant along with other documents filed by one complainant along with other documents filed by one Mr. Unit Bansal (relative of Mr. Mudit Bansal) (appointed by Naresh Aneja and Mudit Bansal) Membership no. 529392 and firm regd no. 26356N.
iii.Balance sheet and P&L account of 2012- 13 not signed by complainant along with other documents filed by one Membership No. 516769 and firm regd no. 509249C.
iv. Balance sheet and P&L account of 2011- 2012 not signed by complainant along with other documents filed by one Mr. Avadesh Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:19:56 +0530 Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 4 of 19 Gupta (appointed by Naresh Aneja and Mudit Bansal) Membership No. 516769 and firm regd no. 509249C.
v. Audit Report for the financial year 2017- 18 forged and fabricated by the accused person, notice dated 02.09.2018 issued by accused no. 2 and board resolution dated 31.07.2018, 30.09.2018 and 14.12.2018 forged and fabricated by accused persons. 2.5 Further, accused persons forged books of accounts of the company by taking out cash from company's account by informing the complainant to divert the funds of the company by in the name of repayment of loan amount but adjusted the same to some other entry so that loan existed in the books of accounts of the company. The accused persons uploaded on company's website of ROC/MCA by forging signatures of company to show fake loan entries in the Company whereas no physical infusion of funds has been done by the alleged creditors. The originally signed correct books of accounts were never uploaded/ filed rather suppressed by the accused persons and are in their possession. Accused persons cheated the complainant by not fulfilling the promise of giving 50% shares of the company but instead they diverted the money into the account of one of the spouses of accused persons who is Arti Aneja. 2.6. Under the mandatory provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, notice of holding AGM has to be necessarily given to the Directors but complainant being one of the Directors received no such notice and before taking loan or raising funds, specials resolutions have to be passed by the Board of Directors of the Company. The auditors have to be appointed at the AGM after Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 5 of 19 PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:20:05 +0530 signatures by both the Directors but in this case, relatives of accused persons have been appointed as auditors of the company, without any valid board resolution being passed as complainant never appointed such persons as Chartered Accountant/ Auditors of the company. The accused person also threatened the complainant to kill him and harm his family. The accused persons have taken over the entire working of the company and are not allowing the complainant and the staff to enter the office and to work. They have also tried attacking him on 13.12.2018 at about 3:30pm, near Saket area through hired goons who warned him to get killed if he tried approaching police officials. Also, on 14.02.2019, accused Naresh Aneja called the complainant for a meeting to settle the matter out of court, however, after meeting the accused, he lured the complainant to their Chattarpur property wherein is brother RK Aneja was also present with some unknown persons (who were body builders) who showed revolver to complainant and threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw his complaint filed before the police authorities.
2.7. The accused persons (Rajinder Kumar Aneja, Naresh Aneja, Mudit Bansal) are guilty of making false and fabricated documents prepared by Udit Bansal who is relative of Mudit Bansal and have also forged the signatures of the complainant to manipulate the books of accounts to raise entries of loans from Mr. Naresh Aneja and Mr. Rajinder Aneja, Arti Aneja and their associate company Laj Exports. Mr. Mudit Bansal has been diverting the profits of the company to these persons (Rajinder Kumar Aneja Naresh Aneja, Arti Aneja) personal Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 6 of 19 15:20:12 +0530 accounts without the consent of the complainant which was later on divided between them and Mudit Bansal, under the garb of repaying loan whereas no such loan was ever given by accused person in the company. "
3. The complainant lodged a complaint with SHO Mehrauli Police Station and DCP Hauz Khas on 13/14.12.2018, but no action was taken. Hence, the complainant moved a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM.
4. After perusing the record, the status report and relying upon the judgments titled as Ramdev Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported as (2015) 6 CC 439 of Hon'ble Supreme Court and M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, 2001(2)JCC (Delhi) 671 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. MM dismissed the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by making following observation:-
"The legal position which emerges is that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to order for registration of FIR is not to be exercised mechanically on the mere asking of the party in ech and every case in a routine and casual manner. The use of the work 'may' in section 156(3) Cr.P.C clearly indicates that the magistrate has the discretion to refuse registration of FIR.
6. The court is of the considered view that all the Digitally facts and circumstance are signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 7 of 19 15:20:19 +0530 well within the knowledge of the complainant. the identity of accused persons is also wel established. The evidence is essentially documentary in nature.
Evidence is essentially within the possession and reach of the complainant and custodial interrogation/ police investigation is not required. In any case,resort can be made to Section 202 Cr.P.C for conducting investigation, if required. Accordingly, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the complainant is dismissed."
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2022 revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
i. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that respondent no. 2 to 7 have committed the grave offences u/s 405/406/415/417/418/419/420/467/468/506/34/120B IPC and the truthfulness of allegations needs thorough investigation which can be done only after the registration of FIR.
ii. The Trial Court erred in relying upon the judgments Ramdev Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujrat reported as (2015) 6 CC 439 and M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, 2001(2)JCC (Delhi) 671 as the facts of the said cases were completely different from the facts of the present case.Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 8 of 19 PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:20:25 +0530 iii. The Trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the police investigation is required as the person responsible for committing forgery has to be ascertained, which can only be done by the technical investigation by the police.
iv. Ld. Trial Court has erred in ignoring the fact that the revisionist is not aware about the identity of all the respondents and even their whereabouts are not known to him.
v. Ld. Trial Court has erred in ignoring that all the documents are in possession of the respondents and same can only be obtained by the police while carrying custodial interrogation.
vi. Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that in this case forgery and cheating has been committed by the respondents/ accused persons, for which a FIR has to be registered.
6. TCR was called for which has been perused.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for both the parties.
8. Ld. counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds has argued that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without application of judicial mind. He submitted that the Ld. MM has failed to consider the materials available before court and has passed an order which is not in accordance with the facts pleaded. He Digitally signed by Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 9 of 19 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:20:31 +0530 contended that there is a need for police investigation pertaining to documents detailed in para 4 (viii) as it is the police only which can search and seize the documents. He also argued that the identification of author of forged documents and the identification of the role of the accused persons in falsification, fabrication of records of the company, forging revisionists signatures, siphoning of money and illegal appointment of directors can be investigated only by the police after registration of FIR and custodial interrogation of respondents. He also argued that the Ld. Trial court has erred in applying the ratio of judgments i.e. S. S. Sandhu Vs. State reported in 2014 (3) JCC 1668, CREF Finance Ltd Vs. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd., Kartar Singh V. State reported in 2019 (265) DLT 559 and Dilawar Singh V. State reported in 2007 (12) SCC 496. He contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 held that it is mandatory to register FIR in a case disclosing commission of cognizable offence. He held reliance upon judgments Ramdev Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported as (2015) 6 CC 439 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and M/s Skipper Beverages Vs. State reported as 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
9. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the respondents has contended that the Ld. MM has passed a reasoned order after due application of judicial mind. He contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that Digitally signed Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 10 ofby 19 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:20:36 +0530 there is no need for any police investigation. He held reliance upon judgments i.e. M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi), Dilshad vs S R Sundaram & Ors on 24 May, 2013, Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 9 July, 2010 and Vikrant Kapur Vs. State 187(2012)DLT 241.
10. When a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is filed, the Jurisdictional Magistrate can issue direction to the police to investigate the case or he can take cognizance of the offence and after examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, he may summon the accused or he may dismiss the complaint. A direction for registration of FIR cannot be issued mechanically, without applying judicial mind to facts and circumstances of the case.
11. In Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"29. 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 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 11 of PURSHOTTAM PATHAK 19 PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:20:41 +0530 takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."
12. In Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"83.....In terms of the judgments of this Court, the Magistrate is required to examine, apply his judicious mind and then exercise discretion whether or not to issue directions under Section 156(3) or whether he should take cognizance and follow the procedure under Section 202. He can also direct a preliminary inquiry by the Police in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra)."
13. Therefore, an exercise for issuance of direction for registration of FIR is not an empty formality. It is a serious exercise of judicial discretion. It must be exercised after due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice. Such direction cannot be issued in a casual and mechanical manner.
14. Such a direction can only be issued where there is prima facie material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence warranting complex and scientific investigation for collection of evidence.
15. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment titled as Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1) Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Digitally Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 12 ofsigned by 19 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:20:47 +0530 Court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that:-
"Magistrates should act under Section 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusation".
16. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi) that :-
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s 156. But cases, where Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before Digitally court, and interest of justice signed by demand that police should PURSHOTTAM step into to help PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 13 of 15:20:53 19 +0530 complainant, police assistance can be taken.
Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portion therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own.
As such, declining request to issue direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified''.
17. In my considered view, once an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is moved before a Magistrate, he has two options. He can either send the case for investigation to concerned Police Station in the facts and circumstances of a particular case or instead of doing so, he may opt for taking cognizance on the complaint of the complainant, may proceed to record the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses in pre-summoning evidence and thereafter, may decide whether a case for summoning of accused is made out or not. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this court, while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165 wherein it has been observed as under :
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAMPURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. PATHAKPage 14 Date:
of 2024.01.20 19 15:20:58 +0530 "12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999 (2) SCC 452, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following: "5......In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
On scrutinizing the
impugned judgment of the
Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 15 of PATHAK
PURSHOTTAM
19 PATHAK
Date:
2024.01.20
15:21:04 +0530
High Court from the
aforesaid standpoint, we
have no hesitation to come
to the conclusion that the
High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence....."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123.
This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the Digitally Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 16 of signed by 19 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:21:13 +0530 revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal.
Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
18. Adverting, to the facts of the present case, the revisionist is the founder director of company Anant Sourcing Management Private Limited, since its inception in the year 2011. Being director, he had the authority to attend the board meetings. Each and every document Digitally signed Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 17 of by PURSHOTTAM 19 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.01.20 15:21:19 +0530 including the board resolution and balance sheet were within his reach. However, surprisingly he remained unaware of everything he had alleged and only in the year 2018 he sensed that some mischief was going on in the company and filed the complaint on 13/14.12.2018, after the filing of complaint against him by the respondents on 13.12.2018. Revisionist has already brought on record the details of money siphoned by the respondents and for further details, if any required, the balance sheets/ account statement etc. can be summoned. As far as search and seizure of documents is concerned, a FIR has already been registered and an investigation regarding their custody is pending.
19. After going through the order of Ld. Trial Court and complaint, I find that the learned trial court had observed that the petitioner / revisionist seems to be in possession of all the evidence and therefore, he can proceed with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Making such an observation and passing such an order was completely within the jurisdiction and power of Ld. MM.
20. Even otherwise, the Ld. trial Court was very cautious and judicious because while disposing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, it allowed the revisionist to proceed with his complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C and has clarified that resort can be made to Section 202 Cr.P.C for conducting investigation, if required.Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 18 of PATHAK Date:
19 2024.01.20 15:21:26 +0530
21. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set aside, Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
22. The revision petition is disposed off.
23. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Ld. Counsel forthwith.
24. TCR be sent back to the court concerned along with a copy of the present judgment.
25. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THIS 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 (This judgment contains total 19 signed pages) Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2024.01.20 15:21:35 +0530 (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI Cr. Rev 325/2022 Mandeep Singh Vs. State and Ors. Page 19 of 19