Delhi District Court
Pl Jain vs Rajeev Pittie on 30 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-012061-2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 452/2022
SHRI. P.L. JAIN,
S/o. Late Shri. Wishan Dass Jain,
R/o. KF-67, Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SHRI. RAJEEV PITTIE,
S/o. Late Shri. Girdhari Lal Pittie,
R/o. Plot No. 243/244C, Boat Club Road,
Village Sangam Wadi, Taluka Haweli,
Pune, Maharashtra.
2. SHRI. PRANAV PITTIE,
S/o. Shri Rajeev Pittie,
R/o. Plot No. 243/244C, Boat Club Road,
Village Sangam Wadi, Taluka Haweli,
Pune, Maharashtra.
3. SHRI. PRASHANT PITTIE,
S/o. Shri Rajeev Pittie,
R/o. Plot No. 243/244C, Boat Club Road,
Village Sangam Wadi, Taluka Haweli,
Pune, Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of e-filing : 24.08.2022
Date of institution : 25.08.2022
Date when judgment was reserved : 14.05.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 30.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code') seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by the learned Metropolitan CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 1 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:22:38 +0530 Magistrate-05/Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ' Ld. MM/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing 'State v. Girdhari Lal Pittie, Cr. Case No. 290437/2016', emanating out of FIR No. 263/2009, under Section(s) 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), PS. Darya Ganj. Pertinently, by virtue of the said order/impugned order the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by/on behalf of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking arraying of the respondents as additional accused.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the instant proceeding is a complaint along with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., filed by/on behalf of the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court, inter alia averring the commission of offence under Section 420/34 IPC by the respondents and co-accused, namely, Keshav Property Developers (hereinafter referred to as the 'partnership firm/firm/developer'), Sh. Girdhari Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Girdhari Lal Pittie (hereinafter Keshav Property Developers, Sh. Girdhari Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Girdhari Lal Pittie are collectively referred to as the 'co-accused'). Notably, as per the revisionist, on 03.05.2006, accused no. 1, while acting through its partner, accused no. 2, in the capacity of a promoter/developer as well as karta of JHF, with the said JUF comprising of the respondents as well as accused no. 3, entered into an agreement to sell dated 03.05.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'agreement in question/agreement to sell') with Sky Lounge Estate Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company/purchaser'). It is further proclaimed under the instant application that the said agreement pertained to the sale of six flats bearing nos. 401, 402, 501, 502, 701 and 702 (hereinafter referred to as the 'premises/flats'), proposed to be constructed/developed by the developer/accused CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 2 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:22:42 +0530 no. 1 on the plot bearing No. 243/244 C, off. Boat Club Road, Village Sangamwadi, Taluka-Haveli, District Pune, Maharashtra. As per the complainant, the total sale consideration against the said proposed sale of the premise was agreed to be a sum Rs. 8,36,26,500/- (Rupees Eight Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand and Five Hundred only), out of which, part sale considerations of Rs. 83,62,650/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only), Rs. 3,32,18,250/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) and Rs. 2,37,550/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only), were conveyed/transferred by the purchaser to the developer on 24.03.2006, 19.04.2006 and 05.05.2006, respectively [cumulatively amounting to Rs. 4,18,18,450/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighteen Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only)], through bankers' cheques, issued by the purchaser. The purchaser/complaint further asserted that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, the purchaser was allured by the respondents and co-accused persons that they would construct sixteen residential flats in eight story building , i.e., two flats on each floor and for the said purpose, Pune Municipal Corporation had sanctioned the plans submitted by the accused/co- accused persons. Correspondingly, the company asserted that as per the said agreement, the residential premises/flats were agreed to be handed over by developers to the company within a period of twelve months from the date of execution of the aforesaid agreement/agreement in question. However, as per the company, the accused issued a letter dated 01.09.2008 to the company inter alia informing the company that despite their efforts, the accused/co-accused failed to secure the permission from Pune CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 3 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:22:46 +0530 Municipal Corporation for construction of the seventh and eighth floor of the proposed premises/flats. Ergo, under such facts and circumstances, the company, acting through the revisionist, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with the aforesaid application inter alia averring the commission of offence of cheating by the accused/co-accused, while acting in collusion and connivance with each other and despite being aware that they were not in possession of the requisite sanction from the concerned authorities, gave false assurances/inducement to the company, thereby causing wrongfully loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves.
2.1. Markedly, upon such application having been filed, the Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Court, duly considered the material and arguments addressed on the company's said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 26.11.2009, disposed of the same, issuing directions for the registration of FIR inter alia under the following observations;
"...Arguments on application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. heard. It is the case of the complainant that on 03.05.2006, accused no.2, partner of accused no.1 firm executed an agreement to sell six residential flats to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,36,26,500/- out of which Rs.4,18,13,250/-was paid by the complainant. The agreement to sell was executed at Pune. At the time of executing the agreement to sell, it was represented by the accused that it had obtained sanction from the Pune Municipal Corporation and the said stipulation is mentioned in the last para of page no.3 of the agreement.
*** *** *** Keeping in view the false representation/ inducement made by the accused no.2 and consequent delivery of money by the complainant to the accused, a prima facie case of commission of offence punishable U/s 420 IPC is made out against accused no.1 and 2. The offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property is completed at Delhi as the payment is stated to have been made from Delhi and loss to the complainant was caused at Delhi.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 4 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:22:49 +0530
Accordingly, SHO PS Daryaganj is directed to register an FIR U/s 420 IPC against accused no.1 and 2 forthwith. Renotify for filing of status report of investigation on 27.05.2010. Copy of this order be sent to SHO PS Daryaganj for compliance and another copy be given dasti to the complainant.
(Emphasis supplied) 2.2. Significantly, it is noted from the records pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, the instant FIR came to be registered, and investigation ensued. Subsequently, on conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet in question came to be filed before the Ld. Trial Court. Markedly, the said chargesheet inter alia records that during the course of investigation, various documents were collected from Pune Municipal Corporation, besides the statements of various witnesses were recorded. Ergo, the chargesheet concluded that the accused named there, i.e., Keshav Property Developers, Sh. Girdhari Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Girdhari Lal Pittie, cheated the company by accepting the booking amount of seventh floor (flat no. 701 and 702) of the premises in question, despite the fact that they had no permission from Pune Municipal Corporation to make construction at the seventh and eighth floors at Empress Court, Plot No. 243/244-C, Off Boat Club Road, Village Sangamwadi, Taluka Hawali, Pune, Maharashtra, at the time of booking of flats and till the time of filing of chargesheet. Concomitantly, the accused persons were arrested and the chargesheet concluded with the observation that Girdhar Lal Pittie, Smt. Veena Pittie, and Keshav Property Developers, committed the said offence and that there was, "no evidence against other alleged persons...".
Relevantly, upon the chargesheet being filed, cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC was taken by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2014, leading to the issuance of summons CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 5 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:22:53 +0530 against Girdhar Lal Pittie, Smt. Veena Pittie, and Keshav Property Developers. Appositely, during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, doubt regarding the status of Keshav Property Developers, as to whether the said entity was a partnership firm or a company, was expressed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 28.07.2016, leading to issuance of notice to the concerned IO to clarify the same. Consequently, on 21.10.2016, upon consideration of a report/affidavit filed by the IO, Ld. Trial Court in its order of the same date inter alia concluded, as under;
"...Matter is fixed for consideration regarding status of accused no. 3, i.e., M/s. Keshav Property Developers through its Directors. IO has filed an affidavit regarding status of accused no. 3 and mentioned in the affidavit that accused no. 3 is a partnership firm.
It is well settled law that a partnership firm is not a legal entity and have no separate existence and cannot be criminally prosecuted separately. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also fairly concede aforesaid observation. Accordingly, accused no. 3, i.e., Keshav Property Developers through its Directors is dropped from the array of accused persons..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. As aforenoted, since Keshav Property Developers was determined, not to be a separate legal entity, besides the same was was already represented by its partners, Ld. Trial Court vide the aforesaid order, was pleased to drop the said firm/ Keshav Property Developers from the array of accused. Subsequently, proceeded continued against accused, namely, Girdhar Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Pittie and arguments on charge were addressed by/on behalf of the State as well as the said accused persons. Consequently, the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2017, was pleased to direct framing of charge(s) under Section(s) 420/34 IPC against the said accused persons. Apposite at this stage, to reproduce the relevant extracts from order dated 07.04.2017 of the CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 6 of 39 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 15:22:56 +0530 Ld. Trial Court, as under;
"...1. Vide this order, I shall decide whether charge is to be framed against both accused for offence under section 420/34 IPC.
*** *** ***
5. I have perused the entire record and considered the submission made by both the side.
6. It is always to be remembered that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence of prosecution has not yet commenced. Accordingly, only the sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused on a general consideration of materials placed before the Court by the Investigating Police Officer are to be considered. Truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Same standard in appreciation of evidence as would be applied at trial to find whether accused is guilty is not exactly to be applied at the stage of consideration of framing a notice. At that stage even a very strong suspicion founded on materials before the Court, which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence...
7. Further, it is also settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, only the police report as referred to in Section 173 Cr.P.C. is required to be referred to be seen...
8. In the case in hand, there is prima-facie material to frame charge agaisnt the accused persons. Accused persons allegedly induced complainant company to invest money in unit no. 701 and 702 of the property in question despite the fact they had not requisite sanction from Pune Municipal Corporation at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Last para of page no. 3 of the agreement to sell clearly reflects that accused persons misrepresented to complainant company that they had due sanctioned from Pune Municipal Corporation. There is sufficient prima facie material against both the accused persons for framing charge. There is no merit in the submission of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that accused Veena Girdhar Pitte cannot be held vicariously liable for the act of other partner as every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. The judgments relied upon are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 7 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:23:00 +0530
9. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, material on record and submissions of Ld. APP for the State, I find that there are sufficient grounds in the present case which disclose a prima facie case for the offence U/sec 420/34 IPC against both the accused. Accordingly, charge for the offence U/sec 420/34 IPC is framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Apposite for the purpose(s) of present discourse to reproduce the relevant extracts from the charges, so framed against the aforenoted accused persons, namely, Girdhar Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Pittie on 07.04.2017, as under;
"...I, ***, MM (C-10), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi do hereby charge you; 1) Girdhar Lal Pitte, S/o Sh. Mukund Lal Pitte; and 2) Veena Girdhar Lal Pitte, W/o Sh. Girdhar Lal Pitte, as under:-
That both of you accused persons being partners in M/s. Kehav Property Developers in furtherance of your common intention on 03.05.06 entered into an agreement to sell with complainant Sh. P.L. Jain (who is the director of Sky Lounge Pvt. Ltd.) to sell to him Flats at 7th and 8th floor on 7th and 8th storey in an 8 storey building in Pune, Maharastha, within the jurisdiction of PS Darya Ganj, Delhi and cheated the complainant Sh. P.L. Jain while dishonestly inducing him to handover Rs. 1,46,00,000/- as consideration for booking of flat/unit 701 and 702 in Pune as a part of project Empress Court to construct the said flat/unit without sanction/permission from Pune Municipal Corporation in the project of Empress Court and even till 01.09.2008, both of you accused persons were not able to get the required permission/sanction from Pune Municipal Corporation for the above-mentioned flat/unit and thereby caused wrongful loss of above- mentioned amount to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420/34 IPC and within my cognizance.
I hereby direct you be tried by this Court for the said offences..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.5. Pertinently, upon framing of charge, proceedings of recording of evidence/prosecution evidence commenced. Markedly, during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Trial CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 8 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:03 +0530 Court, it was brought to the notice of the Ld. Trial Court that the accused, Girdhar Lal Pittie had left of heavenly abode, leading to the Ld. Trial Court, issuing notice to the concerned SHO to file death verification report of the said accused. Consequently, upon such report on verification of demise of accused, Girdhar Lal Pittie having been filed, the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 27.03.2019, abated the proceedings against the said accused/accused Girdhar Lal Pittie. Appositely, on re-
commencement of recoding of evidence on behalf of the prosecution/State/PE, and upon conclusion of evidence of PW-1/Sh. P.L. Jain/revisionist and PW-2/Smt. Shobha Sharma on 11.03.2020, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court, seeking arraying of the respondents as additional accused in the instant case. As aforenoted, the said application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 23.05.2022/impugned order, inter alia under the following observations;
"...1. Application filed by the complainant u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for arraigning Rajeev Pittie, Pranav Are and Prashant Pittie as additional accused is hereby Dismissed. A belated effort on cart of the complainant to fit a square peg in a round hole as it were, and that too, based upon no new evidence, requires to be repelled at first instance.
*** *** ***
3. *** The facts of the case as enumerated in the FIR had been obviously known and if it had been wanted, non-inclusion of such proposed accused in the chargesheet filed could have been objected to at a much earlier point in time, but not to be. In fact, what to say of arraigning additional accused persons, the proceedings against the chargesheeted third accused firm M/s Keshav Property Developers were also accepted to be closed by the complainant, as alluded to above. In view of the same, the intention to get arraigned the proposed accused persons as accused now, seems rather suspect.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 9 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 15:23:07 +0530
4. Further, up until the stage when the present application came to be filed, absolutely no evidence has come on record during examination of the witnesses which was not known from before. No additional allegation or other incriminatory facts have surfaced against the proposed accused persons which were previously unknown or not before the court. In such circumstances, how and under what circumstances can arraigning of the proposed accused persons u/s 319 Cr.P.C. be justified at this stage has been unable to be explained by the complainant.
5. Whatever PW2 Mrs. Shobha has thus far stated in her examination as a witness was mentioned previously as well in the subject FIR. Upon the said allegations, investigation already stands concluded and chargesheet filed, wherein the proposed accused persons were not named as accused. The complainant, if so needed, could and should have objected to then as to the exclusion of the proposed accused persons from being chargesheeted. But never was any such grievance raised. At this stage now therefore, in the opinion of this court, no new evidence within the meaning of 319 Cr.P.C. has come on record which warrants the proposed accused persons to be summoned to face trial.
6. In fact, what appears to the court to have happened is that when the accused Girdharilal Pittie expired and the complainant was confronted with a situation where only one accused Veena Pittie was left, with the third accused M/s Keshav Property Developers having already been agreed to be not proceeded against, the complainant chose to resuscitate it's allegations against the proposed accused persons. This can be seen simply from the fact that the evidence of PW2 Mrs. Shobha started after the death of accused Girdharilal Pittie, and only then did the witness choose to level allegations against the proposed accused persons. Before that, PW1/ Complainant, who was examined prior in time from the demise of accused Girdharilal Pittie, did not depose anything specific qua the proposed accused persons. In such circumstances, the allegations being made afresh now, appear to be motivated.
7. Considering the above, no positive evidence can be said to have come on record post the framing of charges and during the witness examination conducted thus far, relying upon which proposed accused persons can be arraigned as accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. As such therefore, application of the CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 10 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:23:11 +0530 complainant cannot be favorably considered and is hereby Dismissed..."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled cannons of law, deserving to be set aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere assumptions and that no sound and/or cogent reasons have been delineated under the said order. It was further submitted that the reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court, while dismissing revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., overlooked the basis principle of law that such an application can be filed at any stage of trial with the objective behind the said provisions being to elicit the actual truth in a given case. Ergo, under such circumstances, the reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court that the instant application has been belatedly filed, while dismissing the said application, is not in consonance with the settled law. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, since the alienation of the property by the karta of a Joint Hindu Family/JUF is voidable at the instance of coparceners, demonstrate the gross illegality and pre-meditation between the accused, charged and those left of the offence in the instant case. In this regard, it was asserted that the facts of the present case, clearly demonstrate that the agreement in question originated at the behest/consent of the left out accused persons, lest they would have challenged about the execution thereof. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel asserted that the law of criminal conspiracy stipulates that the participants of conspiracy need not be present/taken action at each and every stage of crime.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 11 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 15:23:14 +0530
On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, it is sufficient for the offence of criminal conspiracy to be invoked that the said accused persons were tangled at the first stage or any other stage for achieving the common design plotted by the others. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the purpose of concurrence, actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists further submitted that the common intention of the accused persons and the respondents is evidenced from the testimony of PW-2, who deposed that the offence in question was facilitated by the left out accused persons and that she was, in fact, induced by the proposed accused persons/respondents for the execution of the agreement in question. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the observation made by the Ld. Trial Court qua the complainant's consent to drop proceeding against the partnership firm is completely devoid of any merit as it is settled law that a company can be prosecuted through its directors and representatives as it is a virtual person, by virtue of the provisions under Section 305 Cr.P.C. As per the Ld. Counsel, exoneration of the company as an accused has no connection even remotely with the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and no onus could be cast upon the complainant in this context. Correspondingly, it was submitted that the observation of the Ld. Trial Court that no evidence has come on record during the examination of the witnesses is also unconnected from the actual fact. As per the Ld. Counsel, it is a matter of fact that all the proposed accused persons/respondents were a part of the agreement in question, which forms the pillar of the present case, which is undisputed by the complainant as well as by the accused. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the names of all CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 12 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:18 +0530 the left out accused persons/proposed accused persons/respondents duly find mention in the said agreement as they had executed the agreement by way of the deceased accused, Late Shri. Gridhari Lal Pittie. Further, it was asserted that the observation made by the Ld. Trial Court that the upon death of Shri. Girdhari Lal Pitte, the complainant was confronted with the situation that only one accused Veena Pitte was left and the complainant chose to revive its allegation against the proposed accused person/respondents is totally baseless as the testimony of PW-2 was recorded only after the death of accused, Shri. Girdhari Lal Pitte and she was the eyewitness to the execution in question. 3.2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the instant application could only be moved once the testimony of PW-2 was recorded before the Ld. Trial Court as she was a prime witness, actually and physically present on the date of execution of the agreement in question, as well as being a part of prior meetings.
Further, it was asserted that the proposed accused persons/respondents were named in the FIR as they were also a part of the agreement in question and had conducted/held meetings, besides facilitated the registration of the said agreement as well as were beneficiaries to the wrongful gains of the accused. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the police deliberately exonerated the proposed accused persons/respondents for the offence(s) committed by a cursory observation, without manifesting what investigation was actually conducted in the instant case. Ergo, under such circumstances, Ld. Counsel entreated that considering the patent and gross illegality in the manner in which the proceedings were conducted before the Ld. Trial Court and the impugned order was passed, same be outrightly set aside by this Court. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel for the CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 13 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:23:22 +0530 revisionist prayed that the impugned order, being passed in gross violation of law and settled judicial precedents, be set aside on the aforenoted grounds. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. v. State of Kerala, Crl. Appeal Nos. 357-359/1998, dated 20.08.2001 (SC); Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 875/2021, dated 24.08.2021 (SC); and Ramakant Singh & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 3484/2023, dated 07.11.2023 (SC).
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and, as such, deserves no interference by this Court. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that all the relevant facts and circumstances were duly considered by the Ld. Trial Court, besides the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, wary of the settled judicial precedents and the material brought forth. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that no illegality/infirmity can be attributed to the impugned order, so as to subject the same to any interference by this Court under this Court's exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, Ld. Counsel outrightly submitted that the scope of interference and the bandwidth encompassed in Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited and that it has been repeatedly avowed by the superior courts that the even the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in its scope and ambit. As per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order was duly cognizant of the law that the power encompassed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and that too when there is a very strong and cogent evidence against a person. Ld. Counsel CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 14 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:26 +0530 further submitted that the power under the said provision is not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has given a proper reasoning, while rejecting the application of the revisionist, besides the impugned order, as per the Ld. Counsel, clearly demonstrates that the Ld. Trial Court has duly considered the entire material, applied its mind to the evidence on record, and came to the conclusion which is based on rational application of mind. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that present is not a case, where there is any misinterpretation of any evidence on record or that there is a conclusion arrived at which is perverse in nature, when tested on the material on record. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court has come to a clear conclusion that the complainant, having laid a different foundation is now trying to shift his stand, contrary to the foundation laid by himself in the initial complaint. 4.1. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is proper weight given to the evidence on record, while arriving at a conclusion whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Further, there is nothing to show that the evidence id dealt in any perfunctory manner or there is any gross or palpable error. As per the Ld. Counsel, the principle as laid down by various courts, require an element of perversity traceable in the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Court either on law or of appreciation of evidence for letting the courts act under the provisions of revisional jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel further submitted that for an interpretation to be concluded as perverse, same would require that there was a conscious violation of law or interpretation of facts as well as law, which is not the case here. In this regard, Ld. Counsel strenuously contended that the impugned order, on reading in its entirety does not give any impression that it CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 15 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:30 +0530 is perverse in any manner. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel asserted that the scope of interference of revisional court is limited and that no grounds/reasons for any interference is made out by the revisionist in the instant case. Further, as per Ld. Counsel, the revisionist opted to resuscitate allegations against the proposed accused persons, only upon the demise of Shri. Girdhari Lal Pittie, especially, when PW-1 deposed no specific role against the proposed accused persons. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, Ld. Counsel entreated that the present revision petition deserves outright dismissal as bereft of merit, besides the case also has background of civil tenor/colour. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Ajay Kumar @ Bittu & Anr. v. State of Uttrakhand, (2021) 4 SCC 301; State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC Online SC 1294; State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 768; Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204; Mohit @ Sonu & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 7 SCC 789; Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State, through Inspector of Police & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 774; Mayawati v. Markendeya Chand & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 517; Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 672; Sau Panchashila DADA Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 17 SCC 81; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, Represented by the Public Prosector & Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206; B.M. Nigam v. Chairman, State Bank of India & Ors., 2011 SCC Online All. 1804; and Ajay Kumar v. Radha Swami Satsang Beas & Anr., 2017 SCC Online HP 1719.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and that of Ld. Counsel for the respondents have been heard as well as the records, including the Ld. Trial Court records, case laws relied CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 16 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:23:35 +0530 upon by the parties as well as the legal points of arguments/submissions, filed by/on behalf of the parties, thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the case/issues posed before this Court, it would be apposite to outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law, in particular, the provisions under law/Section 397 Cr.P.C.1, as under;
"397. Calling for records to exercise of 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..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of parties, solely in the cases 1 Pari materia to Section 438 BNSS, which provides; "438. 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 his own bond or bail 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 439.***(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...." (Emphasis supplied).
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 17 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 15:23:40 +0530
where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. observed as under:
"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 aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 18 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:44 +0530 Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1192, in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it 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. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that trite law that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner." Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, 2 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 958.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 19 of 39
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30
15:23:48
+0530
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Notably in the context of the foregoing, it is further apposite to observe here that it is no longer res integra that the order, refusing to issue summons on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been held by the superior court(s), not to be an interlocutory order, as barred by the provisions under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. As a corollary, revision petition against such order, is maintainable. In this regard, it is pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohit @ Sonu & Anr. v. State of U.P.& Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 814/2013, dated 01.07.2013 (SC): 2013 (7) SCC 789, wherein the Hon'ble Court enunciated the law in regard the foregoing as under;
"20. In the light of the ratio laid down by this Court referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the trial court refusing to issue summons on the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be an interlocutory order within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, in the instant case, before the trial court the complainant's application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was rejected for the second time holding that there was no sufficient evidence against the appellants to proceed against them by issuing summons. The said order passed by the trial court decides the rights and liabilities of the appellants in respect of their involvement in the case. As held by this Court in Amar Nath's case (supra), an order which substantially affects the rights 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 as contemplated under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C..."
(Emphasis supplied) CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 20 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:52 +0530
11. Proceeding further, however, before evaluating the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/Cr.P.C. for the purpose of present discourse, as under;
"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Notably, it may be seen from above that the provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. deal with the power of court to proceed against 'other persons', appearing to be guilty of offence, during the course of trial. In particular, Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia provides that where during the course of trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence brought forth that any person, who has not been arrayed as an accused, has commuted any offence for which he may be tried along with the accused, "... the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed...". Here, this Court deems it CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 21 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:23:56 +0530 pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1184/2025, dated 06.03.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia explicated the purpose behind the introduction of said provision/Section 319 Cr.P.C. under the statute books, under the following observations;
"34. Section 319 has been included in the statute book with the object of ensuring effective administration of justice. The legislature enacted Section 319 to eliminate any situation wherein the courts would feel helpless in proceeding against any person who appears to be guilty of committing an offence, more particularly, in cases where the investigating agency or prosecution files chargesheet only against a few persons in relation to an offence and leaves out a few others either intentionally or unintentionally. The said section empowers the courts to proceed with persons who are not the accused before it, upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the provision."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Quite lucidly, it is seen from above that the ultimate objective behind the provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to empower courts to ensure smooth functioning of the criminal justice system and in particular, to aid the determination of the ultimate truth in a case so that an innocent does not get punished. Apposite in this regard to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 1750/2008, dated 10.01.2014: AIR 2014 SC 1400: 2014 (3) SCC 92, wherein the Hon'ble Court expressed similar sentimentalities, inter alia in the following terms;
"8. The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the accused does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 22 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law was appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately find out the truth so that an innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under the Constitution and our laws that have led to several decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive tools have been forged to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.
9. The presumption of innocence is the general law of the land as every man is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory presumptions in relation to certain class of offences have been raised against the accused whereby the presumption of guilt prevails till the accused discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon him under the law to prove himself to be innocent. These competing theories have been kept in mind by the legislature. The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial and in our opinion, in order to achieve this very end that the legislature thought of incorporating provisions of Section 319 CrPC. It is with the said object in mind that a constructive and purposive interpretation should be adopted that advances the cause of justice and does not dilute the intention of the statute conferring powers on the court to carry out the abovementioned avowed object and purpose to try the person to the satisfaction of the court as an accomplice in the commission of the offence that is the subject-matter of trial.
*** *** ***
12. Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC.
13. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 23 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:24:03 +0530 should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 Cr.P.C.?..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Germane for the purpose(s) of present discourse to note that despite such salutary objective behind the provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the superior courts 3 have repeatedly cautioned that the discretion envisaged therein is not to be lightly exercised and that it must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person. In fact, considering the extraordinary nature of power, envisaged under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it has been persistently avowed 4, such discretion should be used, "very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken." Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Juhru v. Karim, Crl. Appeal No. 549 of 2023, dated 21.02.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Court, noted in akin terms, as under;
"17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked."
(Emphasis supplied) 3 Babu Bhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2014 SC 2228.
4Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 792.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 24 of 39
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30
15:24:07
+0530
15. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1127: 2000 (3) SCC 262, remarked in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused.
But even then, what is conferred on the court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words the court may proceed against such person. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Unmistakably, it is seen from above that in order for court to form an opinion regarding the exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is not enough that some doubt regarding the involvement of a person in an offence exists, rather, such a court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding the other person's commission of such offence CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 25 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:24:10 +0530 and that such other person, can be tried along with the already arraigned accused. Correspondingly, the superior courts have further enunciated that the test to be adopted at such a stage is one, which is more than a mere prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, however, short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Relevantly, in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (Supra.), observed as under;
"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross- Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Ergo, being mindful of the principles hereinunder CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 26 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:24:14 +0530 noted, this Court would now proceed with the determination of the arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the respondents. As aforenoted, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has asserted that despite there being sufficient material to proceed against the respondents, Ld. Trial Court passed the order of dismissal of the revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in extreme haste and unmindful of the correct factual position. However, upon conscientious perusal of the entire records, including the evidence of witnesses recorded before the Ld. Trial Court, this Court finds itself difficult to concede with the said submission of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist. In this regard, this Court outrightly observes that except for general and sweeping allegations against the respondents herein, there is nothing substantial or concrete against the respondents herein to demonstrate even their prima facie involvement in the commission of the offence alleged against the co-accused. In fact, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist pertaining to respondents' involvement in the commission of the alleged offence stands further belied by the reading of the agreement in question, in particular the following extracts thereof;
"...This agreement to sell made at on this 3 rd day of May 2006, at Pune.
BETWEEN;
M/s. KESHAV PROPERTY DEVELOPERS acting through its partner SHRI. GIRDHARLAL MUKUNDLAL PITTE, Age: 73 years, Occupation Business, residing at 243/244C, Off Boat Club Road, Pune 411 001. Hereinafter called and referred to as the "PROMOTER" (which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context mean and include the partners, their heirs, administrators, successors representatives and assigns), THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART.
AND;
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 27 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 15:24:17 +0530 SKY LOUNGE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,
a registered company having office at 4315/3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002, acting through authorized representative Mrs. Shobha Kalyan Chandra Sharma Age: 54 years, address residing at 4315/3, Ansari Raod, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110 002. Hereinafter referred to as the "PURCHASER" (which expression, unless repugnant to the context mean and include the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns), THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART.
AND;
(1) SHRI. GIRDHARLAL MUKUNDLAL PITTIE, age 72 years, Occupation- Business, being Karta of Hindu Joint family property, (2) SOU.
VEENA GIRDHARLAL PITTIE, age 61 Occupation- Business, (3) SHRI. RAJEEV GIRDHARLAL PITTIE, age 45 years, Occupation- Business, (3a) SHRI PRANAV RAJEEV PITTIE, age 19 years, Occupation- Business, and (3b) SHRI PRASHANT RAJEEV PITTIE, age 16 years.
Occupation Student, Non 3a & 3b acting through their Karta, i.e., No 3. all residing at Final Plot No. 243/244-С, Off. Boat Club Road, village Sangamwadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. Hereinafter referred to as "The Owners." All the owners acting through their Power of attorney holder SHRI GIRDHARLAL MUKUNDLAL PITTE, Age:
73 years, Occupation: Business, residing at 243/244C, Off Boat Club Road, Pune 411 001 (which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to mean and include their respective legal heirs, executors, successors and assigns), THE PARTY OF THE THIRD PART.
*** *** *** AND WHEREAS the Promoter decided to develop the said property. The Promoter planned scheme for constructing building on the said property consisting of flats only. Hereinafter called and referred to as the "said building." The Promoter planned the scheme to construct the said building and sell the flats therein to prospective purchasers, on ownership basis. The Promoter has agreed to sell the flats on certain terms and condition, which shall include but not restrict to payment of taxes, dues and strictly comply with the terms and conditions of theses presents by the intended purchasers.
*** *** *** AND WHEREAS as such, the Promoter is entitled to develop the said property.CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 28 of 39
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:24:21 +0530 AND WHEREAS the Promoter alone has the sole and exclusive right and authority to carry out development on the said property and to carry out acts such as to advertise the development scheme, commence & carry on and complete the development of scheme, to execute agreement/s with prospective purchasers, accept consideration from the prospective purchasers, pass valid receipts, present the said agreement/s to the proper registration office, admit execution thereof and complete entire registration procedure, form a co-operative society or an apartment condominium or a joint stock company of the purchasers of various flats in the said building. AND WHEREAS the Purchaser herein applied to the Promoter for allotment for the Purchaser a residential flats bearing No. 401, 402, 501, 502, 701 & 702 (Six flats) each two located on the Forty floor, Fifth floor and Seventh floor respectively, total admeasuring 1766.28 sq. mts. built-up area in the proposed, building to be constructed upon the said property. Hereinafter called and referred to as the "SAID FLATS."
*** *** *** AND WHEREAS relying upon the said declaration, the Promoter has agreed to allot and sell to the Purchaser the said flats at the price and on terms and conditions hereafter appearing.
AND WHEREAS prior to the execution of these presents, the Purchaser has paid to the promoter a sum of Rs. *** The Purchaser has agreed to pay the Promoter balance of the entire consideration for the said flats in the manner hereinafter appearing***"
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Noticeably, it is seen from above that though the agreement for sale/agreement in question is in essence a tri-party agreement, however, the same, in essence, relates to the sale of premises to company/Sky Lounge Estates Private Limited by the promoter/Keshav Property Developers. Needless to mention that it is seen from above that the agreement in question has been executed/signed on behalf of the said purchaser and promoter, rather, the consideration is also proposed to be transferred from the purchaser, exclusively to the promoter, besides the part consideration has been transferred by the purchaser to the CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 29 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:24:25 +0530 promoter, under the said agreement. Quite evidently, no role/involvement of the respondents is forthcoming from the said agreement. Correspondingly, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is painstakingly analyzed, no role of the respondents is forthcoming from the evidence of PW-1/revisionist/Sh. PL Jain. In fact, under the said evidence/examination in chief of PW-1 dated 04.08.2017, no role of the respondents is demonstrable/forthcoming, as noted herein;
"***M/s Keshav Properties Developer launched a project in Pune in the name of Empress Court, where the accused persons Girdhar Mukundlal Pittie and Veen Girdharlal Pittie were the two partners of the said partnership firm. The accused persons through the broacher and layout plan proposed to construct an eight storey building at 243/244 C, off Boat Club Road, Pune having 16 flats i.e. two flats at each floor. On 03.05.2006, our company entered into an agreement with the abovesaid firm for buying six residential flats bearing nos.401.402.501.502,701 and
702. Total sale consideration for all the six flats was Rs.8.36.26.500 (Rs. Eight crore thirty six lakhs twenty six thousand and five hundred). The accused persons lured us to buy the flats on the seventh floor i.e., 701 and 702 by telling us that the facilities that can be availed at seventh floor like better view, better air and we were charged higher amount as compared to flats on the lower floors i.e. we paid Rs.4600/- per sq. ft (approximately) for flats at seventh floor as compared Rs.4300/- per sq. ft. (approx.) for flats at lower floors.
As per the agreement, our company had to pay 50% of the sale consideration in advance and rest of the amount at the time of possession. Our agreement was registered on 03.05.2006 and by that time we had paid half of total sale consideration to the M/s Keshav Property Developers. The photocopy of the said registered agreement running into 27 pages is already on record and is now Ex PWI/C (OSR) bearing the signatures of the then representative of our company Ms. Shobha Sharma at Point A. She was made representative of our company by the Resolution of our company to represent the company in the said agreement to sell. The copy of the said Resolution is on record and is now marked as A-1. Ms. Shobha Sharma is the wife of Kalyan Chand Sharma. The photocopy of the annexure of the said agreements are CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 30 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:24:29 +0530 running into 10 pages are also on record and are now collectively Ex PW1/D (OSR) wherein the layout plans and commencement certificate of the Pune Municipal Corporation are placed.
We paid the amount in three instalments in the month of March, April and May. 2006 from our Banker City Bank, CP Branch, New Delhi through the NRE (Non Resident External) account of Mr. Kalyan Chand Sharma. The photocopy of the bank statement for the said payments is already on record and is now Ex PW1/B (OSR). As per the said statement, we paid Rs.83,62,650/- on 24.03.2006. Rs.3,32,13,250/- on 19.04.2006 and Rs.2,37,350/-on 05.05.2006 and for generator in the Empress Court Rs.10,50,000/- on 26.07.2006. As per the agreement, the possession of the booked flats would be handed over to us within 12 months from the date of agreement. Accused persons had also promised to us that they have obtained all the necessary sanctions, permissions from all the concerned authorities including Pune Municipal Corporation. The said condition is also mentioned in abovesaid agreement already Ex PW1/C on page number 3.
*** *** *** The Keshav Properties Developers is a partnership firm wherein accused G.M. Pettie and Veen Pettie were the two partners and Mr. Rajiv G. Pettie, Pranav R. Pettie, and Prashant R. Pettie were the beneficiaries as they are the coparceners of the ancestral land on which the project namely Empress Court was to be constructed.***"
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Clearly, it is seen from above that the revisionist/PW-1 attributed no role for commission of any offence, against the respondents in his deposition before the Ld. Trial Court. In fact, as aforenoted, the allegations of even inducement/allurement were directed against the co-accused. In particular, as seen from above, even PW-1/revisionist define the accused under his deposition only as Keshav Property Developers, Sh. Girdhari Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Girdhari Lal Pittie (i.e., the co-accused), with the entire monetary transaction and conveyance of premises to be undertaken between the promoter/co-accused as CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 31 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:24:32 +0530 well as the company, with no role of any inducement, allurement, threat or enticement, criminal conspiracy or cheating even prima facie attributed against the respondents, herein.
20. Correspondingly, when the evidence of PW-2/Smt. Sobha Sharma is meticulously perused, this Court concedes with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court under the impugned order that no new evidence, within the meaning of 319 Cr.P.C., has come on record, warranting summoning of the respondents as additional accused in the instant case. Apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts from the evidence of PW-2/Smt. Sobha Sharma, as under;
"***We went to the house of accused persons and there they had shown us the site plan of the property to be constructed in the name and style of Keshav Properties Dealers. The accused persons were partner in the said Keshav Properties. The accused persons apprised us that they have complete permission regarding the construction of the said flats in the building. They further apprised us that they have permission to construct the building upto eight floors. We decided from the site plan that we will buy six flats in the said building and we choose flat no. 401, 402, 501, 502, 601 and 602 to which they objected that sixth floor has been kept for some family members by the accused persons and suggested that you may take the seven floor as the view from there was quite good and little bit expensive than the sixth floor. As we were doing this deal in the name of our company i.e Sky Lounge Estates Pvt Ltd for which one resolution was passed by the board in my favour as to become the authorized signatory on behalf of the company to deal in respect of documentation of the flats on 29.04.2006. On the suggestion of accused persons, we decided to purchase flats no. 401,402, 501, 502, 701 and 702.
Thereafter, on 03.05.2006 we entered into agreement to sell on behalf of Sky Lounge Estates Pvt Ltd with Keshav Properties and the amount of total agreement was Eight crore thirty six Lac twenty six thousand and six Hundred fifty rupees only (Rs. 8,36,26,650.00). The half of the payment l.e (Rs. 4,18,13,250.00) Rs. Four Crore, Eighteen Lac, Thirteen Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty Rupees Only). Forty Two Lacs were paid for registry. The CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 32 of 39 ABHISHEK GOYAL Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 15:24:36 +0530 possession of the flats were required to be handed over within one year from the date of agreement to sell on payment of remaining half amount. At the time of agreement accused Mr. Girdhar Lal Pittie and his two sons were present there in the registry office. The agreement to sell is running into 38 pages is now collectively Ex. PW2/A which bears my signature at point A, B, C & D. *** *** *** All the accused persons were having hands in glove with Knight Frank and advocate even son of the accused persons were also involved in the case. The accused persons made this plan since inception to play fraud upon us as we were NRI and with other persons like agent of Knight Frank's Agent and the advocate involved committed the abovesaid fraud as they did not have the necessary permission to seventh and eighth floor. IO recorded my statement during investigation in this regard.
*** *** *** The fraud has been played upon us by accused persons and their son Rajeev Pittie and moreover by their grandsons namely Prashant and Pranav. The agreement was signed by all these five persons on behalf of Keshav Properties Developers. They all five induced me to sign on behalf of the company by showing the false lay out plans***"
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Quite evidently, it is seen from above that even PW-2/Smt. Sobha Sharma in her deposition before the Ld. Trial Court defined the accused persons as the partners of Keshav Property Developers, i.e., Sh. Girdhari Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Girdhari Lal Pittie, and attributed specific allegations against the said accused for the inducement of the company and eventual conveyance of the part consideration amount. In fact, PW-2 emphasized under her deposition that it was on the suggestion of the said accused persons, the company decided to purchase flats no. 401, 402, 501, 502, 701 and 702. Pertinently, the only allegation against the respondent, in the deposition of PW-2 is that at the time of the agreement, Girdhari Lal Pittie and his, "...two sons were present there in the registry office...". Correspondingly, CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 33 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:24:40 +0530 PW-2 avowed that the accused persons were working hand in glove with, "...Knight Frank and advocate even son of the accused persons were also involved in the case...". However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said allegations are quite general in nature in so far as PW-2 not only fails to attribute any specific role qua the respondents in her deposition pertaining to any inducement or of the company delivering any property to the respondents, pursuant to said inducement, rather, even the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy/Section 120B IPC, do not appear to be prima facie made out under the facts and circumstances, hereinunder noted/placed on record. Needless to further mention that under her deposition, PW-2 even fail to specify the names of said sons of Girdhari Lal Pittie and for the sake of argument, presuming the version put forth by PW-2 to be unblemished, mere factum of the presence of said 'two sons' of the said accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient to demonstrate any prima facie allegation/offence against the respondents herein. Here, it is further pertinent to note that the said allegations have not only been made by PW-2 on behalf of the company for the first time in her deposition before the Ld. Trial Court, despite the fact that no role of the respondents was even delineated in the revisionist's complaint. Correspondingly, even the allegation of PW-2 that fraud was played upon the company by the co-accused as well as the respondents, as deposed by PW-2 in her evidence on 19.10.2019 is extremely general in nature, without any specific role or involvement of the said proposed accused persons/respondents forthcoming from the material placed on record. Ergo, under such circumstances, this Court further concedes that up until the stage of filing of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist before the CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 34 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:24:44 +0530 Ld. Trial Court, no evidence was forthcoming on record at any stage of examination of any witness, which was not known from before. Correspondingly, this Court further concurs from a scrupulous analysis of record that no additional allegation or other incriminatory facts have surfaced against the proposed accused persons/respondent, which were previously unknown or not before the court, necessitating any indulgence/exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. Trial Court. Needless to further mention that in the instant case, not even prima facie case, leave alone, a case more than prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction, as specified under Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (Supra.) is made out against the accused, necessitating any interference in the order/impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court by this Court.
22. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to observe that though it is conscious of the settled law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (Supra.) even when the stage of protest petition has passed, courts are not precluded from exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., however, from a scrupulous perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the reason for dismissal of the revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not premised on the said ground. On the contrary, it is repeatedly affirmed under the impugned order that no new evidence, as specified under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is forthcoming from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, necessitating exercise of said jurisdiction. Ergo, even on said count, this Court fails to concur with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 35 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:24:48 +0530 impugned order deserves any interference/change/alteration or setting aside by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, even this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by/on behalf of the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court when the accused Girdhari Lal Pittie, left for heavenly abode and the company/revisionist was confronted with a situation where only one accused Veena Pittie was left as an accused before the Ld. Trial Court to resuscitate its case. Here, this Court deems it further pertinent to note that not much reliance can be placed on the averment of the parties that proceedings against Keshav Property Developers had already been dropped for the reason, as aforenoted that the Ld. Trial Court under its order dated 21.10.2016, while dropping the proceedings against Keshav Property Developers noted that the said entity was a firm, already represented by its partners, i.e., Girdhari Lal Pittie and Smt. Veena Pittie. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, while passing the said order, Ld. Trial Court duly noted that a firm has no separate legal identify except for its partners, who were already arrayed as accused in the instant case. Lastly, this Court also concedes that the instant application was a belated exercise on the part of the revisionist, with the revisionist never agitating its case against the respondents at any stage prior to filing of the said application and only upon demise of Girdhari Lal Pittie. Needless in this regard to mention that the order of cognizance/summoning of co-accused, charge framing and order of charge, etc. all remained uncontested by/on behalf of the revisionist.
23. Ergo, in light of the foregoing discussion, this Court unswervingly records that the Ld. Trial Court did not commit any irregularity, illegality and/or impropriety under the impugned CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 36 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:24:52 +0530 order, while dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in light of the facts and circumstances, arguments addressed, documents and the material placed on record, as well as judicial dictates. Needless to mention that though it holds highest regard for the decisions relied, however, the same would not come to the aid of the revisionist, in the manner as proposed, as the facts and circumstances of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
24. As a concluding remark, this Court deems it apposite to note that against the order dated 23.05.2022/impugned order, the present revision petition was preferred by the revisionist only on 24.08.2022, with a delay of 02 (two) days, with no explanation of reasons for delay forthcoming. Needless to mention, no application for condonation of delay has further been filed by/on behalf of the revisionist along with the instant petition, tendering any cause/sufficient reason for such delay. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to note that though it is conscious of the repeated avowals of the superior courts that there is no presumption under law5 that the delay in approaching courts was deliberate on the part of the litigant and that the courts are advised to adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, in variance to, technical interpretation while considering an entreaty for condonation of delay. Nevertheless, the superior courts6 have, persistently avowed that delay in filing petition ought to be sufficiently explained and that delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. However, in the instant case neither any application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the instant petition nor any reasons for delay forthcoming during the course of arguments addressed.
5J.M. Ramachandra & Sons v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1082.
6D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 2624.
CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 37 of 39
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30
15:24:56
+0530
Correspondingly, it is observed that the revisionist has opted not even to implead the State as one of the respondents in the instant petition, despite the proceedings emanating in a state case. Another disquieting feature of the instant proceeding is that the instant revision petition has been filed by the revisionist, being the complainant in the instant case. Noticeably, the cause title of the instant petition gives no indication that the instant revision petition has been filed by/on behalf of the company, Sky Lounge Estate Private Limited, though, para 1 of the instant petition specifies that board of resolution was passed in favour of the revisionist on behalf of the said company. Correspondingly, it is observed that even the accompanying affidavit to the present revision petition, gives no indication as to whether the instant revision petition was filed on behalf of the company. In fact, even the title of the affidavit has been specified as State v. Girdhari Lal Pittie, etc. (Late), instead of the cause title of the present petition. Markedly, during the course of proceedings before this Court, the revisionist herein is asserted to have left for heavenly abode on 09.08.2023 and an application for substitution of the revisionist has been moved on behalf of the revisionist by the newly engaged/appointed representative of the company, Sh. Sanjay Sharma. Apposite to note that the said application was never pressed by/on behalf of the revisionist, besides it was never clarified as to the maintainability thereof, especially when the instant revision petition, as aforenoted, has not been filed in the name of the company. Clearly, the aforesaid lacunae accentuate the indifferent attitude in pursuing the present remedy before this Court.
25. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unwaveringly records and reiterates that the impugned CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 38 of 39 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.06.30 15:25:00 +0530 order/order dated 23.05.2022, passed by Ld. MM-05, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing 'State v. Girdhari Lal Pittie, Cr. Case No. 290437/2016', emanating out of FIR No. 263/2009, under Section(s) 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dismissing revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., deserves no interference/indulgence from this Court as no infirmity, irregularity, palpable error and/or non-compliance of the provision of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, determinable under the impugned order. Consequently, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, in view of the aforesaid observations.
26. Trial Court Record along with a copy of this order/judgment be sent to the concerned Ld. Trial Court for record and intimation purpose(s).
27. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.06.30 15:25:06 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 30.06.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 452/2022 Shri. P.L. Jain Vs. Shri. Rajeev Pittie & Ors. Page 39 of 39