Delhi District Court
Dr. Pankaj Gupta vs Cbi on 15 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF M. P. SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT) CBI-02, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX,
DELHI
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025
Dr. Pankaj Gupta
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram Gupta
R/o 43, Alkapuri, Alwar
Rajasthan - 301 001 ... Revisionist
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ...Non-Revisionist
Case instituted on - 06.08.2025
Arguments heard on - 01.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on - 15.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The instant is a petition under sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta seeks to set aside order dt. 04.06.2025 passed by Ms. Neetu Nagar, learned ACJM-06, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi in CC No. CBI/103/2024, whereby and whereunder he was summoned as an accused for offences punishable under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 420 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof, after taking cognizance.
2. On 05.04.2024 CBI, SC-1, New Delhi registered FIR for offences punishable under section 120-B IPC read with section 370 IPC and sections 80 and 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 qua incidents of illicit trafficking and unlawful sale and purchase of infants in Delhi and other States.
3. After investigation, chargesheet dt. 30.06.2024 for offences punishable under section 120-B IPC read with sub-
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 1/17sections (4) and (5) of section 370 IPC and section 420 of IPC along with section 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the substantive offences thereof was filed against nine (09) individuals, namely, Neeraj Nagar, Indu Panwar, Aslam, Pooja Kashyap, Anjali @ Golu, Ritu @ Neeraj Sharma, Kavita, Hari Singh Choudhary and Arti Nayak. Cognizance of the offences was taken and the said nine (09) individuals were summoned as accused. After making compliance of section 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Session1, which, by order dt. 08.11.2024, remanded it back, noting that the offence under section 370 of IPC was not made out and the remaining offences were triable by Magisterial Court2.
4. CBI conducted further investigation and filed supplementary chargesheet dt. 30.12.2024 against four individuals, namely, Rahul Mehrolia, Ms. Sushma, Dr. Reena Yadav and Dr. Pankaj Gupta. Thereupon, the court of learned ACJM-06, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi vide the impugned order dt. 04.06.2025 summoned these four individuals, including the Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta, as accused.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order dt. 04.06.2025, is as follows:
"..............As far as Dr. Pankaj Gupta is concerned, it transpired during further investigation that he is running an IVF Center under the name "Indo IVF Test Tube Center" at Alwar, Rajasthan. Investigation has revealed that he received huge amount of money i.e. approximately Rs. 8 lakhs by cheating Sh. Jai Singh and Smt. Rekha Sharma on the pretext of infertility treatment in conspiracy with accused 1 The case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-04, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi.
2 This order dt. 08.11.2024 of the Court of Session is under challenge at the instance of CBI before Delhi High Court.Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 2/17
Hari Singh Chaudhary. Both Sh. Jai Singh and Smt. Rekha Sharma stated about the same. Dr. Praveen Garg also stated that the normal charges for infertility treatment are about Rs. 1.5 lakhs and it could further increase according to repeating cycles as per wish of the patient. He stated that documents regarding treatment of Smt. Rekha Sharma shows that she did not get pregnant from the treatment of Sh. Pankaj Gupta. As such accused Dr. Pankaj Gupta is also liable to be summoned for offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and substantive offence thereof............... This court is of the considered opinion that there are clear and categorical findings in the supplementary report against the accused persons namely Dr. Reena Yadav, Dr. Pankaj Gupta, Rahul Mehrolia and Sushma qua the commission of offence for which they have been chargesheeted. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and material available on record, I take cognizance against the accused persons for the commission of offence as detailed hereunder:-
Rahul Mehrolia (A-10) Section 120-B read with 420 Sushma Mehrolia (A-11) of IPC and Section 81 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and substantive offences thereof.
Dr. Reena Yadav (A-12) Section 120-B read with 420
of IPC, 197 IPC and Section
81 of Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 and substantive
offences thereof.
Dr. Pankaj Gupta (A-13) Section 120-B read with 420
of IPC and substantive
offences thereof.
Accused persons namely Dr. Reena Yadav, Dr. Pankaj Gupta, Rahul Mehrolia and Sushma be summoned through IO/SP concerned for NDOH.............."
6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to consider the statements under section 161 of CrPC of three key witnesses, namely, Jai Singh, his wife Ms. Rekha Sharma, and Dr. Praveen Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 3/17 Garg. Gist of their statements under sections 161 CrPC, insofar as they are relevant for the present purpose, are as under.
Gist of Jai Singh's statement dt. 10.09.2024 under section 161 of CrPC Upon arriving at Indo IVF Centre in Alwar, Rajasthan, along with my wife, I met Hari Singh Choudhary, who introduced me to Dr. Pankaj Gupta. Dr. Pankaj Gupta thereafter conducted certain medical tests on my wife and informed us that she was incapable of conceiving. Following this, I and my wife exited the centre. Hari Singh too came out and inquired about what Dr. Pankaj Gupta had told me. I then conveyed to Hari Singh the information received from Dr. Pankaj Gupta. Subsequently, I paid Rs. 8 lacs - Rs. 3 lacs through bank transfer and rest in cash that was arranged from relatives - to Dr. Pankaj Gupta for treatment. I have no documents of cash payment. Dr. Pankaj Gupta and/or Indo IVF Centre gave us no documents. I and my wife then discussed the possibility of adopting a male child with Hari Singh, who said he did not know anyone, but would try to contact parents willing to give up a child voluntarily in adoption.
In February 2024 Hari Singh informed me that a couple was willing to give up their child for adoption. I told Hari Singh that we wanted to adopt the child through legal means. Acting on this information, we visited the IVF centre on 21.02.2024, where Hari Singh directed us to proceed to RR Hospital, Alwar. Upon reaching RR Hospital, we met Hari Singh, who informed us that the infant in question was unwell and admitted in NICU. On 22.02.2024 Dr. Reena Yadav met and spoke with my wife, following which the infant was handed over to us by Hari Singh. Before we left the hospital premises, Hari Singh instructed one Amit Yadav to prepare the discharge documents. These documents show that my wife had been admitted to RR Hospital on 21.02.2024 for the purpose of delivery and the following day she and the infant were discharged. The said discharge documents were then handed over to us. Hari Singh told us that the documents were blemish free and that the infant was now legally ours. He also got prepared a birth certificate for the child. We did not meet Dr. Pankaj Gupta at RR Hospital, Alwar. All arrangements for preparation of documents at RR Hospital were done by Hari Singh.
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 4/17Dr. Pankaj Gupta conducted certain IVF-related tests on my wife at his centre. After the test results came back negative, we declined to proceed with any further tests. The suggestion to adopt the child came solely from Hari Singh and Dr. Pankaj Gupta had no role in initiating or proposing the adoption.
Gist of Ms. Rekha Sharma's statement dt. 21.05.2024 under section 161 of CrPC Ms. Rekha Sharma, in her statement dt. 21.05.2024 under section 161 of CrPC, has, for the most part, reiterated the version of events as stated by her husband, Jai Singh. Therefore, for the present purpose, it is not necessary to reproduce the gist of her statement separately. Gist of Dr. Praveen Garg's statement dt. 19.09.2024 under section 161 of CrPC I did my MBBS in year 2001, followed by a diploma in anesthesia. I have been working with Dr. Pankaj Gupta at his IVF Centre in Alwar, Rajasthan. Dr. Pankaj Gupta used to pay me Rs. 1,500/- approximately per IVF cycle. To the best of my knowledge the fee of IVF treatment per IVF cycle as charged by the hospital concerned is about Rs. 1.50 lacs except the medicines. The fee varies as per the number of cycles in accordance with wishes of the patient. The documents dt. 17.03.2023 (consent form, investigation reports, discharge slip, and identification documents of Rekha Sharma) bear the names of Dr. Sarika Mehta/Dr. Reena Yadav. Dr. Reena Yadav used to work in the said IVF Centre on call basis in the capacity of gynaecologist/ sonologist. I confirm that during the course of IVF treatment of Ms. Rekha Sharma I had signed on documents in my capacity as anesthesiologist.
7. Based on the foregoing background, the assertions advanced in the present petition are now being taken note of. In challenging the impugned order, the Revisionist makes following averments in his petition.
I) Learned ACJM erred in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 IPC against him and in summoning him. Essential ingredients of cheating, Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 5/17 including dishonest inducement and deception right from the very inception are not made out from the facts alleged against him. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
II) He has nothing to do with alleged illicit trafficking and unlawful acts of sale and purchase of infants which is the primary subject matter of the FIR. CBI itself in its supplementary chargesheet clearly mentions at page no. 26 thereof that sufficient evidence required for his prosecution for the offence of sale/purchase of child could not be found.
III) Allegations against him of overcharging are distinguishable from the primary allegation of illegal trafficking of infants and for which the FIR was registered. As per the prosecution, he accepted money for infertility treatment, but the patients did not conceive. However, the success of infertility treatment is not assured, and mere failure of the treatment cannot, by itself, be considered an act of cheating
-- particularly in the absence of any evidence indicating dishonest inducement or intent to deceive from the very beginning of the treatment.
IV) Dr. Parveen Garg (a prosecution witness) is a freelance Anesthetists and not an IVF specialist. He has no knowledge of charges and expenses of IVF treatment and medicines.
V) There are omissions and additions in the statements of Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma casting a serious doubt on their story. As per the prosecution version, Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma bought a child from Hari Singh (co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary), but they were not arrayed as accused and Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 6/17 this again casts doubts on CBI's intentions.
VI) There is no documentary proof to substantiate that he received Rs. 8 lacs in his bank account.
8. Opposing this Revision, the CBI in its reply, filed on 20.08.2025, states as follows.
I) There is ample evidence against the Revisionist for the alleged offences. He was involved in a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary and others, engaging in cheating, preparation of documents and illegal dealings involving an infant rescued from Hari Singh Choudhary. The Revisionist fraudulently induced victims Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma to pay a large sum under the false pretext of infertility treatment and later, adoption, after the treatment failed.
II) Co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary was working at Indo IVF Test Tube Center, Alwar, Rajasthan that was being run by Revisionist. Co-accused Dr. Reena Yadav issued fake birth related documents of the infant to the victims.
III) During the investigation/ further investigation, victims Jai Singh and his wife Rekha Sharma stated that they were married in 2013 and have a 7 year old daughter; that after unsuccessful attempts to conceive again, they visited Indo IVF Test Tube Center in Jaipur in 2023; that there, he (Jai Singh) was informed that the main doctor, Dr. Pankaj Gupta (the Revisionist), operated from Alwar; that in March 2023, they visited his Alwar clinic and met Hari Singh, an employee; that they shared their desire for another child and Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 7/17 their fertility issues with Hari Singh; that Hari Singh introduced them to the clinic owner, namely, Dr. Pankaj Gupta, who examined Rekha Sharma and advised some test; that after the test, they met Dr. Pankaj Gupta again in April 2023; that Dr. Pankaj Gupta checked the test reports and informed them, in Hari Singh's presence, that Rekha Sharma had a medical condition making conception difficult and that, even with treatment, any pregnancy might not be viable; that after leaving the clinic, Hari Singh asked the victims about the consultation, and they repeated what Dr. Pankaj Gupta had told them; that victims Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma then discussed the possibility of adopting a male child with Hari Singh, who said he did not know anyone, but would try to contact parents willing to give up a child voluntarily in adoption.
IV) Investigation further revealed that Dr. Pankaj Gupta fraudulently obtained Rs. 8 lacs - Rs. 10 lacs from Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma under the pretext of IVF treatment and adoption; that he misrepresented facts to secure the payment and issued a slip detailing the amount received from Jai Singh; that of the total amount, Rs. 3 lacs was transferred in bank account, while the remaining was paid in cash, arranged through relatives; that relevant bank statements and documents confirming the payment were collected during the investigation.
V) During investigation, documents qua infertility treatment conducted by Dr. Pankaj Gupta (MR No. 1158/2014) were collected. These include a consent form dt. 17.03.2023, Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 8/17 investigation reports, discharge slip, and identification documents of Rekha Sharma, confirming her treatment at PRIBBGOM INDO IVF TEST TUBE CENTRE, Scheme No. 10, Jain Mandir Road, Alwar, Rajasthan. The records indicate that despite undergoing treatment, Rekha Sharma did not conceive. Subsequently, Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma were deceitfully induced to adopt a child.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. Before delving into the matter, it is important to highlight that learned ACJM-06 had summoned the Revisionist not solely for the offence of cheating under section 420 of IPC, but for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120-B IPC, read with section 420 IPC, along with the corresponding substantive offences. The summoning order clearly reflects that the allegations against the Revisionist pertain not just to the act of cheating, but also involve a broader charge of having conspired to commit the said offence in concert with others.
11. Next, under the law, the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence(s) issues summons to the accused under section 204 of CrPC if he/she is of the opinion that there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' against him/her. In ascertaining whether there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding', the Magistrate is required to see whether the record discloses a prima facie case against the person intended to be summoned as accused, and not whether it is likely to result in his/her conviction3. Therefore, at the stage of summoning an accused under section 204 of CrPC, the crucial test is whether the material on record prima facie discloses the 3 See in this regard Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609.
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 9/17commission of an offence by the accused, warranting issuance of process against him. Further, under the law at the stage of section 204 of CrPC, the Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but only to consider the inherent probabilities apparent from the record; the Magistrate has to decide this question solely from the point of view of the chargesheet, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have4.
12. Now, the moot question is whether in this case learned ACJM had 'sufficient ground for proceeding' so as to issue summons to Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta. In this context, the statements under section 161 of the CrPC of the three aforementioned prosecution witnesses reveal several critical and highly significant aspects, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta was the one who was the owner/key person of the IVF Centre, namely, Indo IVF Centre in Alwar, Rajasthan.
(ii) Going by the statements, co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary was working/employed at the said IVF Centre owned by Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta.
(iii) Victims Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma had visited the said IVF Centre where they met co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary, who introduced Jai Singh to Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta.
4 See in this regard Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957.
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 10/17(iv) Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta thereafter conducted certain medical tests on Ms. Rekha Sharma and informed the victims that she was incapable of conceiving.
(v) Thereafter, the victims exited the centre; co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary too came out and inquired from them about what the Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta had told them; Jai Singh then conveyed to co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary the information received from Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta.
(vi) Jai Singh paid Rs. 8 lacs - Rs. 3 lacs through bank transfer and rest in cash that was arranged from relatives - to Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta for the treatment. As per the statement of Dr. Praveen Garg, the fee of IVF treatment for every IVF cycle normally charged by 'the hospital concerned' is about Rs. 1.50 lacs only, except the cost of medicines. Dr. Praveen Garg has a MBBS degree and as per his statement he has been working with Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta at the said IVF Centre since 2014. Further, as per his statement, Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta used to pay him approximately Rs. 1,500/- for every IVF cycle.
(vii) Later, in February 2024 co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary informed Jai Singh that a couple was willing to give up their child for adoption and to which Jai Singh told him (Hari Singh Choudhary) that they wanted to adopt the child through legal means.
(viii) Acting on this information of co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary, victims Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma visited the IVF centre, owned by the Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta on Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 11/17 21.02.2024, where co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary directed them to proceed to RR Hospital, Alwar.
(ix) Upon reaching RR Hospital, Alwar, Rajasthan victims Jai Singh and Rekha Sharma met co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary, who informed them that the infant in question was unwell and admitted in NICU.
(x) On 22.02.2024 co-accused Dr. Reena Yadav met and spoke to Rekha Sharma, following which the infant was handed over to the victims. Co-accused Reena Yadav, as per the statement of Dr. Praveen Garg, used to work as gynaecologist/ sonologist at the IVF Centre of the Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta.
(xi) Co-accused Hari Singh Choudhary was instrumental in preparation of documents at RR Hospital, and which documents falsely showed that Ms. Rekha Sharma was hospitalised in RR Hospital, Alwar, Rajasthan on 21.02.2024 for delivery and the following day she and the child were discharged.
13. Given the above, this court is of the considered view that the Magistrate had 'sufficient ground for proceeding' so as to summon Dr. Pankaj Gupta as accused under section 204 CrPC for the offences alleged against him. The multiple circumstances set out in the preceding paragraph prima facie indicate that Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta had conspired with others to cheat the victims. As held in Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, (2005) 9 SCC 15 in cases of cheating, it is not essential to have direct evidence of dishonest intention; such intention can Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 12/17 very well be proved through reasonable inferences drawn from the surrounding circumstances. The false pretence alleged against Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta in order to commit the offence of cheating need not necessarily have been articulated in explicit or unequivocal terms. In this context, it was observed in Devender Kumar Singla (supra):
7. ................Section 420 deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Section 415 defines "cheating". The said provision requires : (i) deception of any person, (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Deception of any person is common to the second and third requirements of the provision. The said requirements are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction "or". The definition of the offence of cheating embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are:
(i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and (iii) the mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay [AIR 1960 SC 979 : 1960 Cri LJ 1383].)
8. As was observed by this Court in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras [AIR 1967 SC 986 : 1967 Cri LJ 946] it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 13/17 always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
(underlined for emphasis)
14. Next, it may also be noted that conspiracies are not hatched in open and by their nature, they are secretly planned; conspiracies can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence5.
15. Learned counsel for the Revisionist contended that, as a professional, the Revisionist has a right to set fees for the services rendered, and the prosecution cannot dictate or suggest that a professional must adhere to a fixed or predetermined rate. This argument does not persuade this court to take a different view of this matter. The material on record shows that Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta had charged Rs. 8 lacs, much more than the normal rate of Rs. 1.50 lacs, from Jai Singh for the IVF treatment. As per Dr. Praveen Garg's statement, the fee of IVF treatment for every IVF cycle normally charged by 'the hospital concerned' is about Rs. 1.50 lacs only, except the cost of medicines. It may be noted that Dr. Praveen Garg has a MBBS degree and as per his statement he has been working with Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta at the said IVF Centre since 2014. Charging the victim more than five times the normal rate for IVF treatment is prima facie indicative of malafide conduct on the part of the Revisionist. It calls for a compelling explanation from the Revisionist as to why, despite ordinarily charging Rs. 1.50 lacs for the same treatment, an exorbitant amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was taken from victim Jai Singh. However, no credible and satisfactory explanation came forth from the Revisionist for this glaring discrepancy. When the 5 See in this regard E. K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1066.
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 14/17standard fee for the IVF treatment, as routinely charged from other patients by Revisionist's clinic, is Rs. 1.50 lakhs, it raises serious concerns as to why an exorbitant sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was extracted from victim Jai Singh. Such a substantial deviation from the usual charges, without any reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances, prima facie casts a shadow over the bonafides of Revisionist's conduct in this particular transaction.
16. Considering that Dr. Praveen Garg, as per his statement, has been working with Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta at the said IVF Centre since 2014, he is well-placed to provide a correct account of the fee typically charged from patients for IVF treatment at the said centre. Accordingly, Revisionist's contention that Dr. Praveen Garg, being a freelance anaesthetist and not an IVF specialist, would have no knowledge of the charges and expenses related to IVF treatment and medication, is devoid of merit.
17. It was next the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist that the FIR did not name the Revisionist, and he was summoned only on the basis of the averments in the chargesheet. This argument is noted only to be rejected. Under the law, FIR need not be an encyclopaedia of the entire case of the prosecution6.
18. Revisionist next urged that he has nothing to do with alleged illicit trafficking and unlawful acts of sale and purchase of infants which is the primary subject matter of the FIR; that CBI itself in its supplementary chargesheet clearly mentions at page no. 26 thereof that sufficient evidence required for his prosecution for the offence 6 See in this regard Motiram Padu Joshi & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 9 SCC 429.
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 15/17of sale/purchase of child could not be found. In this context, the Court observes that the fact that Revisionist has not been prosecuted for offences related to illicit trafficking or the unlawful sale and purchase of infants does not, in itself, preclude his prosecution for the offence of criminal conspiracy to cheat the victims.
19. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of CrPC is very limited. Explaining its scope, Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460 observed thus:
12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 16/17 aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.
(underlined for emphasis)
20. I find no patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law in the impugned order whereby and whereunder the Revisionist Dr. Pankaj Gupta was summoned as accused for the offences alleged against him. This is certainly not a where the judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely by the Court of learned ACJM. It is my considered view that the impugned order summoning Dr. Pankaj Gupta as accused for the offences alleged against him was in compliance with the provisions of law and based on the relevant material on record.
21. This Revision is dismissed. Trial Court Record (TCR) be sent back with a copy of this judgment.
Digitally signed by
22. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
MURARI MURARI PRASAD PRASAD SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.09.15
11:00:15
+0530
Announced in the open court M. P. Singh
on 15.09.2025 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-02
RACC/New Delhi/15.09.2025
Cr. Rev. No. 31/2025 Dr. Pankaj Gupta v. CBI Page 17/17