Delhi District Court
Shivanu Mehta vs State on 28 May, 2025
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 401/2022
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-010616-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Shivanu Mehta
S/o Late Sh. Rajendra Mehta
R/o Shop No. 18, New Market,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
(through its
Public Prosecutor)
Department of Prosecution
Tis Hazari Courts, West, New Delhi
2. Jaspreet Singh,
R/o Shop No. 18, New Market,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:14 -0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.1 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
3. Kawaljeet Singh,
R/o Shop No. 18, New Market,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018
4. Sarwan Yadav @ Damodar Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o RZ-112, Syed Nangloi,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
5. Raj Kumar
R/o RZ-2, Syed Village
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
6. Kartar Singh
S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh
R/o H.No. 153, Village Mirjapur
Neemka, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 03/11/2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 02/05/2025
Date of judgment : 28/05/2025
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:20 -
0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.2 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionist against the order dated 07/10/2022 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, Ld. MM-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in complaint case No. 32/2021 titled as "Shivanu Mehta V. Jaspreet Singh & Ors." thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant (revisionist herein) was dismissed.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has prayed to summon the Trial Court record and to quash, set-aside and cancel the impugned order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to direct the Ld. Trial Court to re-consider the application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh and to issue directions to the SHO/concerned police officer for registration of the FIR.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the complainant is the owner of the property bearing no. 18 (shop no. 18B), New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi measuring 18.4 sq. mtr., (hereinafter referred to as "shop") which he had purchased from its previous owner on Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:25 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.3 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
21/12/2009. After purchasing the said shop, the complainant had given the said shop on rent to one Sh. Vijay Khurana. In the month of January 2017, when the complainant was shifting his residence, he lost his original documents pertaining to the shop and the complainant had also filed a complaint in this regard on 23/02/2017. In the month of June 2017, when the complainant had visited the shop, he found that some people have re- occupied the shop and on enquiry he found that respondent no.4 & 5 in conspiracy with each other, had already taken the possession of his shop and gave the same to Sh. Ravinder Singh and Smt. Guneet Kaur on monthly rent of Rs.2,30,000/-. Later on, complainant came to know that respondent no.4 had hatched a conspiracy and prepared forged Special Power of Attorney dated 21/03/2017 represented himself to be a special attorney holder of the complainant for the purpose of filing the execution petition. A pre-mediated conspiracy had been hatched by the respondent no. 4 with other respondents and took keys from the tenant in the Court on the basis of SPA. On 06/07/2017, complainant had confronted with the tress-passers, who had illegally occupied the shop and they apprised the complainant that they were inducted as tenants by the respondent no.4. Then, complainant had shown his ownership papers to them and only then they amicably handed over the possession of the shop to the complainant and also gave their statement in writing. As on 06/07/2017, the shop was in the legal Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:30 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.4 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
possession of the complainant. However, he was receiving life threats from unknown numbers, for which, he had also filed a complaint to the police vide DD No. 79-B dated 12/07/2017 at PS Tilak Nagar. Complainant had engaged a counsel and got inspected the judicial file and only then it came to his knowledge that Raj Kumar and his accomplices had purchased an E- stamp paper of Rs.50/- on 22/02/2017 in the name of the complainant whereas, the complainant was not even in Delhi on 22/02/2017. The above named accused persons had prepared a forged SPA by forging the signature of the complainant and got the same notarized. Check list, index, execution petition, supporting affidavit, application u/s 151 CPC, other affidavits and Vakalatnama filed in the Court, bear the forged signature of the complainant. Respondents had committed the offence of cheating by personating, forging and threatening the complainant and they are liable to be prosecuted and punished as per law. On 19/07/2017, complainant had lodged written complaint to SHO, PS Tilak Nagar vide DD No. 39-B. Respondent no.4 had offered onetime settlement amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and asked the complainant to leave the shop or be ready to face the consequences. When the police did not register FIR, then complaint u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant and by the order of the Court, police of PS Tilak Nagar had registered FIR No. 274/2019 against the respondent no.3 & 4 and their associates and started investigation. On Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:36 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.5 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
18/08/2019, complainant was arrested and his brother Ankush Mehta was arrested on 06/11/2019 in a false and frivolous case filed at the instance of respondent no.4 in FIR No. 336/2019 PS Hari Nagar and two other cases. Complainant was taken to PS Hari Nagar after his arrest and was forced to sign a bunch of judicial and non-judicial stamp papers, to which, he denied. Prior to arrest of brother of the complainant, the shop was opened but after his arrest on 16/11/2019, the shop remained closed. On 14/10/2020, when the complainant went to the shop, he was shocked to see that his shop was open and unknown persons were running his shop. There were goods worth Rs.5,00,000/- in the shop at the time of arrest of brother of the complainant. When the complainant made inquiry from those unknown persons, then he came to know that respondent no. 2 & 3 have taken the shop on rent from respondent no.4. Complainant had shown his ownership papers to respondent no.2 & 3 but they were not ready to vacate the shop. Respondents had conspired and broke the lock and illegally trespassed the shop and stolen the goods of Rs.5,00,000/- which were kept in the shop. On 04/10/2020, complainant had called PCR and on 09/10/2020, he had given a written complaint to the office of DCP. Complainant had also given written complaint to the SHO, PS Tilak Nagar but the police did not register the FIR. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint case alongwith application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:42 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.6 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 07/10/2022.
3. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. Grounds of revision- Impugned order is wrong and contrary to settled law. Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the facts correctly. Impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind and also in a stereo typed manner. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by relying upon that the field investigation is not required in the present case and revisionist has already filed a voluminous record of 458 pages to prove his lawful possession in the shop till 06/11/2019 does not inspire the confidence. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. without observing that the acts of the accused persons individually and collectively are illegal, on account of which, the revisionist has suffered loss of property and money. Accused persons have grabbed the property by way of forgery and fabrication and the said fact has not been appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court. Revisionist had further learnt that the accused had placed/filed forged and fabricated documents in the complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which are totally bogus documents as the revisionist never executed the GPA or any sale agreement with accused persons in the month of June, 2019. All accused persons are Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:48 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.7 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
working as syndicate and are land grabbers having protection from the police and local politicians. Ld. Trial Court has completely brushed aside the documents and allegations against the accused persons and passed the impugned order, which is completely silent on the aspect of forgery and production of fabricated documents before the Ld. Trial Court by status report of IO. In FIR No. 274/19 u/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC PS Tilak Nagar, no arrest of any of accused persons has been made. Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that all the allegations against the accused persons were with respect to cognizable offences and despite that the impugned order has been passed without giving any cogent reasoning. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the accused persons had advanced threats to the revisionist with injury to his person and reputation and that of his family with clear intention to deter the revisionist from taking legal action against the accused persons. There are material contradictions in the impugned order. Ld. Trial Court had declined to give direction for registration of FIR despite the fact that there were allegations of forgery in the complaint and it was incumbent upon the Ld. Trial Court to direct registration of FIR. Ld. Trial Court had declined to give direction for registration of FIR despite the fact that unknown persons have also been arrayed as accused in the complaint filed by the complainant.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:54 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.8 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
4. Respondent no. 2, 3, 4 & 6 have contested the present revision petition of the revisionist by filing detailed reply, wherein they denied the contents of the present revision petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
It is mentioned in the reply that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the same is barred u/s 397 (2) Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court and case was fixed for pre-summoning evidence. Instead of leading any evidence, revisionist has filed the present revision petition. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Inquiry Officer had recorded the statements as mentioned in the status report and had also put the specific question to the revisionist.
5. Respondent no.5 has also contested the present revision petition of the revisionist by filing written submissions/ arguments, wherein he denied the contents of the present revision petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
It is mentioned in the written submissions/ arguments that allegations in the revision petition are vague and are not specific. Revisionist has already approached the Civil Court by filing an application Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:00:59 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.9 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
u/s. 340 Cr.P.C. and FIR No.274/2019 PS Tilak Nagar in respect of alleged shop. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court and Ld. Trial Court has determined all the facts and circumstances of the case on merits. Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. Revisionist has not come to this Court with clean hands and concealed the relevant facts.
6. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 to 6 that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contentions has relied upon following case laws:-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:05 -0100
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.10 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(1) Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1} (2) Superintendent of Police, CBI V. Tapan Kumar Singh {AIR 2003 SC 4140} (3) Arvind Gaur V. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. {Crl. M.C. 623/2013 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15/02/2013} (4) S.P. Sharma V. NCT of Delhi {1998 (76) DLT 422} (5) Paradise Credit Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. State of NCT of Delhi {Crl. M.C. 2936/2012 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 20/12/2013} (6) Rajwati V. State of UP {2006 (10) ADJ 539} (7) Mahendri & Ors. V. State of UP & Anr. {2015 (14) SCC 653} Counsel for the respondent no. 2, 3, 4 & 6 in support of his contentions has relied upon following case laws:-
(1) Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2017) 14 SCC 809} (2) Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra {AIR 1978 SC 47}
7. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:10 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.11 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"Argued by: Sh. RK Thakur, Id. counsel for the complainant.
ORDER-:
1. This order will dispose of an application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC").
2 Briefly stated, the allegations of the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of the property bearing No. 18 (Shop No. 18B), New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. It has been submitted that the complainant and his brother Ankush Mehta was arrested in a false and frivolous case, at the instance of accused no. 3, and the complainant remained in judicial custody till last of September 2020. Thereafter, upon release from judicial custody, when the complainant went to the shop, he was shocked to find that unknown persons were running the said shop. The complainant has further stated that goods worth Rs. 5,00,000, which were lying in the shop prior to his arrest, were missing from the shop. The complainant discovered later that the accused no. 1 and 2 had taken the shop on rent from accused no. 3. However, despite showing them the ownership papers belonging to the complainant, accused no. 2 and 3 refused to vacate the shop. The complainant has alleged that the accused persons conspired together, broke the lock of the shop, and illegally trespassed in the shop. Therefore, it is prayed Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:15 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.12 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
that the police be directed to lodge an FIR and investigate the matter.
3 There is another aspect of the case to the effect that when the accused was arrested in 2019, he was beaten up in police custody in PS Hari Nagar and made to sign various papers. However, the present application is not in relation to the said incident, since as per the application, a separate written complaint regarding the said incident of beating was given to the concerned Ld. MM (under whose jurisdiction PS Hari Nagar lies). Therefore, the present application under section 156(3) CrPC is confined to the alleged trespassing by the accused persons in the shop of the complainant. Further, there is an allegation that the accused persons have prepared forged papers to claim ownership of the concerned shop.
4 Action Taken Report ("ATR") was called from the concerned SHO. As per the ATR, accused Kartar Singh had purchased the property from the complainant in June 2019 for a consideration value of Rs. 14,20,000, and the said payment was made in cash. The ATR also mentions that the original chain of papers is in the custody of accused Kartar Singh. The ATR further mentions that statement of two public witnesses (Bhupender and Balvinder) was recorded, and they have stated that the physical possession of the concerned shop is with accused Kartar Singh since June 2019. In the ATR, statement of witnesses to the property papers, i.e., Vijay Yadav and Sher Singh, was also recorded and the said two witnesses have supported the execution of property papers in the name of Kartar Singh and the fact that the said shop was Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:22 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.13 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
sold to Kartar Singh by the complainant in June 2019 for a sum of Rs. 14,20,000.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that field investigation is not required in the present case. All the evidence is within the reach of the complainant. The complainant has already filed a voluminous record of 458 pages to prove his lawful possession in the shop till 6.11.2019 (to refute the argument that he sold the shop in June 2019). Further, both sides have already furnished their respective property documents to show their ownership over the concerned shop. If at all there has been any forgery of documents, the Court can exercise its power and send the said documents to FSL for forensic examination. The dispute boils down to the issue as to whether the complainant, who had lawful possession over the concerned shop till June 2019, sold the said shop to the accused Kartar Singh in June 2019 or not. No new facts are to be unearthed and the custodial interrogation of the accused is not needed. The offence pertains to the year 2019 and no field investigation is deemed necessary at this moment. The recourse to Section 202 CrPC can be taken, if any need for police investigation arises, in future. The legal position with respect to use of powers under Section 156(3) CrPC has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd v. State, 2001 IV AD (Del) 625, wherein it was observed, inter alia, as under:
7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:28 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.14 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
initiate investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in to held the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 20001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled "Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors".
6. Further, in Vijay Gupta v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6665, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
14. Thus, the Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner.
Criminal law is not expected to be set in m otion on mere asking of a party. There has to be some substance in the complaint filed and it is only if it appears that the allegations are serious enough and establish the commission of cognizable offence Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:33 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.15 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
required through investigation by the police, an FIR should be ordered to be registered. The Magistrate can treat an application under Section 156(3) CrPC as a complaint case, adopt the procedure of the complaint case by recording evidences under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC and then either proceed under Section 203 Cr.PC and dismiss the complaint if no offence is made out on summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.PC whose complicity is disclosed in the inquiry conducted by it under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC.
15.Now, reverting back to the present case. I fully concur with the findings of the Trial Court that in this case, all the information and details are in possession of the petitioner and his witnesses which fact also stands even demonstrated from the copy of the complaint filed at the Police Station and sent to the higher Officers of the Police. The Trial Court has properly applied its judicial mind while passing the impugned order, holding that forwarding of the complaint for investigation would not be conducive to justice, as the complainant is well conversant with the identity of the proposed accused persons and all the information and details are in his possession as well as in the possession of his witnesses, however, the option for the police investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is kept open for consideration. As such, if need arises for police investigation, such possibility is not precluded as the Trial Court has kept such option open for consideration under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
16. In view of the above facts and the judgments discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:38 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.16 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
no interference is required in the impugned order. The petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application is also dismissed.
As held in the aforesaid judgments, powers under section 156(3) CrPC ought to be exercised only when the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the Court. However, as noticed in paragraph 5 above, that is not the case in the present set of facts. Resultantly, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinbefore and the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC stands dismissed.
7. Complainant is at liberty to lead PSE on 03.01.2023.
8. Copy be given dasti to the complainant/his counsel.
(DEVANSHU SAJLAN) Metropolitan Magistrate -07 7/10/22"
8. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:44 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.17 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
9. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:50 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.18 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:01:55 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.19 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
10. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr." {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:00 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.20 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
"interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court". Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:04 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.21 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the proceedings would continue;
because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:10 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.22 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. V. Fazru" {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus:
"An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:14 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.23 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not Digitally an interlocutory order. signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:19 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.24 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:24 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.25 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11)
"11. ..... It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:32 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.26 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:37 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.27 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
"Neelam Mahajan & Anr. V. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
11. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant was dismissed. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:42 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.28 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Nishu Wadhwa V. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr." {WP (CRL 1253/2016 and Crl. MA No.6591/2016 decided on 10/01/2017} that "therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable".
Hence, the present revision petition qua the dismissal of the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
12. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision petition on merits.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 07/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/ complainant was dismissed.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss law relating to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The scheme of Cr.P.C. is such that an Officer In-charge of a Police Station has to initiate investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:46 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.29 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the first information report, on receiving the information of the commission of a cognizable offence. From the plain reading of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., it is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is made before an officer incharge of a police station satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form to register a case on the basis of information pertaining to cognizable offence. But when the police officers do not register a case disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and complaint in this regard is made to the Magistrate, then under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. ' may ' order investigation. The expression used herein is ' may ' and not ' shall ' or ' must '. The expression ' shall ' or ' must' implies that the provision is mandatory and expression ' may ' gives discretion to the Magistrate.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Devarapalli Lakshinarayana Reddy V. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors." {AIR 1976 SC 1672} that:-
"It is well settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, disclose the commission of an offence. This is clear from the use of the words " may take cognizance" which in the context in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:51 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.30 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
which they occur cannot be equated with "must take cognizance". The word " may " gives a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
This raises the incidental question: What is meant by "taking cognizance of an offence" by a Magistrate within the contemplation of Section 190? This expression has not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and marginal heading of Section 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which Sections 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The ways in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted and the nature of the preliminary Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:02:55 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.31 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under Section 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. V. State" {2001 IV AD (DELHI) 625} that :-
"A Magistrate must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.'' Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:00 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.32 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as "Gulab Chand Upadhyaya V. State of U.P." {2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 514} that :-
"The scheme of Cr. P. C. and the prevailing circumstances require that the option to direct the registration of the case and its investigation by the police should be exercised. Where some "investigation" is required which is of a nature that is not possible for the private complainant, and which can only be done by the police upon whom statute has conferred the powers essential for investigation, for example:-
1 Where the full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation, or 2 Where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons, or 3 Where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence is required to be collected and preserved. To illustrate by example, cases may be visualized where for production before court at the trial (a) Sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident, or (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:05 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.33 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
or (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, or (d) preparation of inquest report, or (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Pawan Verma V. SHO, PS Model Town & Ors." {2009(2) JCC 1000 Delhi}, that:-
"It is not that in every case merely on the asking of the petitioner the Court must direct registration of an FIR unless the Court is satisfied with the preliminary evidence which is to be submitted by the complainant with an FIR must be registered..........".
It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Mohd Salim V. State" {175(2010) DLT 473} that :-
"The use of the expression may in Sub-
section (3) of Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:09 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.34 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
not require investigation by the Police and can be proved by the complainant himself, without any assistance from the Police. In that case, he may, instead of directing investigation by the Police, straightaway take cognizance of the alleged offence and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses, if any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the Police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the police under section 156(3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation of which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the Police. The Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:14 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.35 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Mohd. Yusuf Khan V. State & Anr." {2014 (3) JCC 1665} that :-
"The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in a routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set into motion on the mere asking of a party.....'' It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Kusum Lata V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {Crl. MC No.1880/2020 decided on 19/04/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"it is clear from the scheme of section 156, where the police fail in its duty to register and investigate a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person may file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Where the Magistrate receives a complaint the word 'may' give a discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. Two courses are open to the Court; either take cognizance under Section 190 or may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:19 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.36 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
particular case, Magistrate may take cognizance on the basis of the complaint instituted before him and may adopt the procedure provided under sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. and if there is no substance in the prima facie evidence adduced by the complainant, the complaint may be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
In view of above facts, observation made by the courts below and the law discussed, the material facts of the present case are well within the knowledge of the petitioner including the identity of the accused persons. Hence, she can establish her case while leading evidence before the trial court under section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellant Court".
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Anjuri Kumari V. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors." {WP (CRL) 1210/2023 and CRL. M.A.11298/2023 decided on 29/11/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi} that :-
"In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the directions for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code cannot be given by the Magistrate mechanically. Such a direction can be given only on application of mind by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:24 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.37 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. Each case has to be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances involved therein. In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police. In the present case, all the facts and evidence are within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can adduce during the inquiry conducted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code."
13. After referring the Lalita Kumari case (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ramdev Food Products Private Limited V. State of Gujarat" { AIR 2015 SC 1742} that :-
"20 It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation Under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K.Aiyappa :
(2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed:
11. The scope of Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:30 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.38 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Procedure came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case : (2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction Under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter Under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra). Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:34 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.39 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
22. Thus, we answer the first question by holding that the direction Under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under Para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (supra) may fall Under Section 202. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case."
14. The criminal complaint of the complainant/ revisionist u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. is pending before the Ld. Trial Court for pre-summoning evidence.
In the ATR/status report filed by SI Anuj Mor before the Ld. Trial Court, it is mentioned that:-
"It is submitted that the present petition u/s 156(3) CrPC was filed by Mr. Shivanu Mehta against Mr. Kartar Singh & Ors wherein the petitioner alleged Mr. Jaspreet Singh & Ors of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:39 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.40 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
theft, cheating, criminal trespass, criminal conspiracy and threat to kill etc. The complainant alleged that he is the rightful owner of Shop No. 18B, Ground floor, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He further alleged that in the month of January 2017 he lost the original documents of above shop while shifting his house from Ganesh Nagar to Hari Nagar, Delhi. The complainant also alleged that the accused persons forged his SPA and on the basis of that succeeded in obtaining the possession of complainant's shop in 2017 from the Hon'ble court and the complainant later on 06/7/2017 took the possession back. FIR NO. 274/2019 is also pending investigation at DIU west in this regard.
The complainant further alleged that he was arrested in a false case of rape i.e. FIR No. 336/2019, PS Hari Nagar on 18/08/2019. During his custody at PS Hari Nagar the petitioner was also made to sign several judicial and non- judicial papers forcefully. The petitioner also alleged that prior to the arrest of his brother Ankush in the same rape case on 06/11/2019 the above shop was in the possession of petitioner. On 04/10/2020 after his bail in rape case when the petitioner reached his shop he found that his shop was open and some other persons are running the shop. The complainant alleged that the alleged persons break opened his shop and stole all the stuff from the shop and took the possession of his shop.
During the enquiry of present petition the petitioner joined the enquiry and produced a written statement wherein he again repeated the allegations levelled earlier in the petition. The petitioner was asked if he could produce any public witness to support his claim/allegations but he refused to produce any PW and further wishes to produce PW before the Hon'ble court. The complainant even refused to disclose name and address of the PW if any. The complainant was also asked to produce or disclose address of workers of his shop who used to work at his Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:44 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.41 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
shop at that time but he did not provide any address. The statement of the complainant is annexed as Annexure-1.
During the enquiry the statement of alleged Kartar Singh was recorded wherein he submitted that he had purchased the property in question from petitioner Shivanu Mehta in the month of June-2019 for a consideration value of 14,20,000. The alleged Kartar Singh further submitted that on the request of petitioner Shivanu Mehta he paid all consideration amount in cash because he did not want/could enter in to any registered sale deed of above property before completion of five years of taking possession of above shop after legal proceedings. Alleged Kartar Singh also submitted that on the request of petitioner Shivanu Mehta they prepared mutual transfer papers. The original chain of papers are also in the custody of alleged Kartar Singh.
Alleged Kartar Singh further submitted that in June 2019 he took the physical possession of the shop from petitioner Shivanu Mehta and running the same since then. The statement of alleged Kartar Singh is attached as Annexure-2. Alleged Kartar Singh also produced signed/attested photocopy of complete previous chain of documents of property in question which is attached as Annexure-3.
It is further submitted that the alleged Kanwal Jeet Singh and Jaspreet Singh also joined the enquiry and submitted that they are working with alleged Kartar Singh at property in question since June 2021. They further submitted that they started their job in June 2021 and continued the same till now. The statement of alleged Kanwal Jeet Singh and Jaspreet Singh is attached as Annexure 4&5 respectively. The statement of alleged Damodar Yadav & Sharvan Yadav was also recorded during enquiry wherein he refused all the allegations levelled against him. Alleged Sharvan Yadav further submitted that he Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:49 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.42 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
has nothing to do with the property in question. He had never claimed/taken the ownership/possession of property in question. The statement of alleged Sharvan yadav is attached as Annexure-6.
During the enquiry the statement of two public witnesses Mr. Bhupender Singh and Balvinder Singh, produced by alleged Kartar Singh, was also recorded wherein both the PW submitted that they are working at Shop no. 18 from last 10 years. The PW further submitted that the physical possession of the property in question is with alleged Kartar Singh since June 2019. The statement of PW Bhupender Singh and Balvinder Singh is attached as Annexure 7&8 respectively.
There are two witnesses namely Vijay Yadav and Sher Singh in the mutual transferred property papers produced by alleged Kartar Singh. The statement of both the witnesses were also recorded wherein the supported the facts disclosed/submitted by the alleged Kartar Singh. The statement of Vijay Yadav and Sher Singh is attached as Annexure-9&10. The signature of petitioner Shivanu Mehta also looks apparently same in the mutually property transferred papers produced by alleged Kartar Singh. The supporting documents filed by petitioner Shivanu Mehta to support his allegations are also attached as Annexure-11 for kind perusal.
From the enquiry conducted so far no cognizable offence is made out. However, the undersigned will be abided by any order/direction passed by the Hon'ble court."
In the complaint case before the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist/complainant stated to have filed the photocopies of documents i.e. swapping machine slip, bank record slips, BSES payment slips & bills, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:54 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.43 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
copies of FIR No. 430/2017, PS Paschim Vihar West & FIR No. 274/2019, PS Tilak Nagar, CM office report, notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C., photographs, EDC machine report, Aadhaar card, PAN card, ITR of the complainant, PAN card of company, GST certificate, GST R-32B, lost report of documents, bank statements, trading license, purchasing bills of goods, charge-sheets of FIR No. 430/2017 & FIR No. 336/2019, pendrive containing video of shop and Local Commissioner Report. Voluminous documents (458 pages) stated to be filed by the complainant in the complaint case in support of his allegations/case.
Copies of property documents in respect of shop in question stated to be filed alongwith ATR/status report of SI Anuj Mor.
Complainant Shivanu Mehta and respondent no.6 Kartar Singh, both are claiming themselves to be the owner of the shop in question.
Filing of copies of the aforesaid documents shows that all the documentary evidence are within the reach and knowledge of the revisionist/complainant and nothing is to be collected for which the assistance of the police is required.
In view of the above, it is clear that the parties are ascertained. The facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the revisionist/complainant. There is nothing for which the police assistance is additionally necessary to be called for. The revisionist/ complainant is in a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:03:59 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.44 of 46 Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
position to lead evidence in the matter. The evidence is within the reach of revisionist/complainant and no custodial interrogation of accused is necessary for recovery of article or discovery of fact.
15. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr." {AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 687} that :-
"The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C. gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.''
16. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28 17:04:04 -0100 CR No. 401/2022 Page No.45 of 46
Shivanu Mehta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
case laws relied upon by the revisionist, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the case laws referred by this Court, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the revisionist is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.28
17:04:09 -
0100
Announced in the open Court
on 28/05/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 401/2022 Page No.46 of 46