Delhi District Court
S. Attar Singh vs Dr. Kumar Rakesh on 22 March, 2025
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 338/2022
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-009744-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. S. Attar Singh
S/o S. Nihal Singh
2. S. Gurdarshan Singh
S/o S. Attar Singh
3. S. Paramjeet Singh
S/o S. Attar Singh
All R/o 2/8, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027
4. Vinod Arora,
S/o Late Sh. K.L. Arora
R/o R-749, 3rd Floor,
New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060 ....Revisionists
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22
16:44:10 -
0200
CR No. 338/2022 Page No.1 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh
VERSUS
Dr. Kumar Rakesh
S/o Sh. Manmohan Prasad,
R/o 3/239, Ground Floor,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027 .... Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 06/10/2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 03/03/2025
Date of judgment : 22/03/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionists against the order dated 01/04/2021 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Medha Arya, Ld. MM-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 11643/2016 PS Rajouri Garden titled as "Dr. Kumar Rakesh V. S. Attar Singh & Ors."
In the present revision petition, the revisionists have prayed to call the Trial Court record and to set-aside the impugned order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:18 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.2 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh and proceedings arising therefrom and to quash the summons issued to the revisionists.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the present revision petition has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court vide which the Ld. Trial Court prima-facie found the revisionists to have committed the offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC and summons were issued to the accused persons (revisionists herein). Respondent has been a tenant in premises No. 3/239, Ground Floor, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as " property in question") since September, 2002. Respondent had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 30/12/2003 with Balwant Kaur (since deceased) and the revisionist No. 2 and 3 for purchase of property in question for consideration amount of Rs.12,25,000/-. Respondent had paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.11,00,000/- was to be paid by the respondent on or before 31/01/2005. Property in question was a lease hold property and sellers were to apply for the conversion to free-hold after receipt of the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.11,00,000/- whereafter, the sale deed could have been executed in favour of the respondent. Respondent had failed to make the payment of the balance sale consideration amount by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:24 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.3 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh 31/01/2005 on the pretext that the property in question had not been converted from lease-hold to free-hold. Accordingly, the respondent had sent two legal notices dated 20/01/2005 and 31/01/2005 to the sellers and the same were replied by the respondent through counsel vide reply dated 01/02/2005. It was contended on behalf of the sellers that they were ready and willing to complete the sale transaction pertaining to the property in question and a meeting between the parties was proposed. Since the respondent was unwilling to pay the remainder of the sale consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/-, Balwant Kaur had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 11/04/2005 with revisionist no. 4 for the sale of the property in question. Revisionist no. 4 had informed the respondent of the purchase of the property in question and demanded the rent of Rs. 4,500/- per month being the new landlord, which was never paid by the Respondent. As a result, revisionist no. 4 had issued a legal notice dated 01/07/2005 to the respondent and in response, the respondent had filed a Civil Suit No. 88/2005 on 14/07/2005 titled as "Dr. Kumar Rakesh V. Balwant Kaur & Ors." for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30/12/2003 and the same is pending consideration before the Court of Ld. ADJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Revisionist No. 4 had also filed a Civil Suit No. 125/2006 against the respondent for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, pendente-lite, mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction and the same is pending consideration before the Court of Ld. ADJ, Central Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:30 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.4 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Balwant Kaur had passed away on 06/07/2013 and the respondent admittedly came to know about the death of Balwant Kaur on 27/01/2014. Despite the pendency of the civil cases between the parties, the respondent had filed the present complaint as an afterthought upon the passing away of Balwant Kaur, belatedly 10 years after the institution of civil proceedings between the parties, in order to give a criminal flavour to the civil disputes between the parties, baselessly alleging that the revisionists have committed offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC. No other similar revision petition against the impugned order dated 01/04/2021 has been filed by the revisionists either in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or any other Court.
3. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Impugned order is arbitrary and bad in law as well as facts of the case. Impugned order has been passed mechanically without due application of mind. Impugned order is unsustainable to the facts of the present case and as per the complaint, an un-executed version of a document i.e. Agreement to Sell dated 03/11/2001, a copy of which has been procured by the respondent from the sources best known to him, has been forged, which is an impossibility in law. Impugned order is unsustainable to the facts of the present case as baseless Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:37 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.5 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh allegations have been levelled against the revisionist no. 4, who is a bonafide purchaser, who has not received any benefit as the respondent continues to reside in the property in question without payment of any rent whatsoever and no Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the revisionist no. 4 till date. Impugned order is unsustainable as the revisionist no. 4 was admittedly not involved with any of the transactions between the respondent and Late Balwant Kaur, revisionist no. 2 and 3. Impugned order is unsustainable as the revisionist no. 1 was admittedly not a party to any of the Agreements to Sell dated 30/12/2003 or 11/04/2005. Impugned order is unsustainable as revisionist no. 2 and 3 were admittedly not a party to the Agreement to Sell dated 11/04/2005. Impugned order is unsustainable as ingredients of any of the offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC are prima-facie not made out based on the complaint of the complainant/respondent. Impugned order is unsustainable since the disputes between the parties is admittedly of a civil nature and the parties are pursuing their remedies in the civil Courts since the year 2005. The present complaint has been filed by the respondent afterthought after 10 years to falsely give a criminal flavour to a civil dispute. Impugned order has been passed in derogation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. related to summoning of the accused in a complaint case. Impugned order is an abuse of process of law as the power to summon the revisionists has been exercised by the Ld. Trial Court in an arbitrary or capricious manner. It is evident from the impugned order that the same is a misdirection in law and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:43 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.6 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh deserves to be set-aside.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that on 27/07/2023 and 01/04/2024, it was submitted by counsel for the revisionists that the revisionist no.1 has expired and on 01/04/2024, copy of death certificate of revisionist no.1 was filed by counsel for the revisionists. Factum regarding death of revisionist no.1 was not disputed by counsel for the respondent.
5. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists and Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists 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 that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the revisionists in support of his contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
(a) Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:49 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.7 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh Magistrate & Ors. {(1998) 5 SCC 749}
(b) Naresh Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. {Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1570/2021 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12/03/2024}
(c) Dinesh Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3343/2022 & 564/2023 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11/01/2024}
(d) Vijay Vs. Union of India {Civil Appeal No. 4910/2023 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 29/11/2023}
(e) Sri Brajendra Das Vs. The State of Assam & Anr.{2025: GAU-AS: 2446 decided by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 07/03/2025} Counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
(a) Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State & Anr. {Crl.
M.C. No. 2556/2010 and Crl. M.A. No. 13511/2010 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 22/03/2011}
(b) Om Prakash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. {Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14971/2023 decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:44:56 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.8 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh 26/04/2023}
6. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"01.04.2021 Present: Complainant with counsel Mohd.
Khursheed.
Matter is at the stage of arguments on the point of summoning.
At request, matter is passed over till 2.30 pm. (Medha Arya) MM-02 (West)/THC/Delhi 01.04.2021 At 2.45 pm Present: Complainant with counsel Mohd.
Khursheed.
Arguments heard on the point of summoning.
It is the case of the complainant that he was the tenant in the premises bearing no. 3/239, Ground Floor, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi- 110027. As per the complainant, he was inducted in the property as a tenant in September 2002 and continue to pay the rent regularly till Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:01 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.9 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh December 2003. It is further the case of complainant that in the month of September- October 2003, he entered with an agreement with his landlords i.e. accused no. 1 to 3 to purchase the aforesaid property for a total consideration of Rs. 12,25,000/-. In pursuance of the agreement, a receipt cum-agreement to sale and purchase dated 03.12.2003 was executed by Balwant Kaur, wife of accused no. 1 herein as well as accused no.2 & 3 on the one part, and the complainant on the other. By way of advance payment towards the consideration amount, Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid by the complainant by way of three cheques, i.e. cheque amounting to Rs. 45,000/- was drawn by the complainant in favour of Smt. Balwant Kaur, and two cheques amounting to Rs. 40,000/- each were drawn by the complainant in favour of the accused no. 2 & 3 respectively. It was agreed between the parties that a formal sale deed shall be executed on or before 31.01.2005. As the accused no. 1 to 3 delayed the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other, the complainant was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 20.01.2005 for execution of the sale deed upon the accused no. 1 to 3, and another legal notice dated 31.01.2005 was also issued by the complainant to the accused no. 1 to 3, in view of their non-compliance to the earlier legal notice.
In pursuance thereof, a reply dated 01.02.2005 was received by the complainant wherein the accused no. 1 to 3 admitted the agreement entered into between the parties and offered that parties may negotiate amicably for the purpose of execution of a sale deed. It is pertinent to mention here that accused no. 2 & 3 and Smt. Balwant Kaur (now deceased) had entered into an agreement to sell on the strength of an Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:06 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.10 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh agreement to sell dated 03.11.2001 in their favour, on the basis of which document, accused no. 2 and 3 alongwith their deceased mother Smt. Balwant Kaur claimed to be the owners of the aforesaid property.
To the utter shock and dismay of the complainant, the complainant found out that accused no. 2 and 3 alongwith accused no. 1, 4 &5 have conspired and forged the said agreement to sell dated 03.11.2001 to illegally transfer the aforesaid property to accused no. 4 & 5. It is noteworthy that in the document shown by the accused persons to the complainant, the property is stated to be owned by Balwant Kaur alongwith accused no. 2 & 3. However, in the document subsequently allegedly forged by the accused persons in conspiracy with each other, only Smt. Balwant Kaur is represented to be the owner of the said property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 03.11.2001. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons in connivance with each other have cheated him and have committed forgery and have thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471/478/472/473/120-B IPC as they have used the forged documents to ultimately transfer the said property to accused no. 4 & 5 by way of agreement to sell dated 11.04.2005 in favour of accused no.4 and GPA dated 11.04.2005 in favour of accused no.5.
The complainant had first approached the court by way of an application u/s 156 (3) CrPC alongwith complaint filed u/s 190 r/w section 200 CrPC. The application u/s 156 (3) CrPC was dismissed by the Ld Predecessor of this court vide order dated 24.01.2018, and the cognizance of the offences Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:13 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.11 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh was taken u/s 190(1) (a) CrPC.
The matter was thereafter fixed for PSE.
At this stage of PSE, the complainant examined himself as CW- 1 and deposed on the lines of the complaint.
Arguments on the point of summoning have been heard.
Qua the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, it is the case of the complainant that deception was practiced upon him as the accused no. 1 to 3 alongwith Smt. Balwant Kaur (since deceased) represented to him that they are willing to sell the property bearing no. 3/239, Ground Floor. Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027 for total consideration of Rs. 12,25,000/- and also induced him to pay them Rs. 1,25,000/- as advance in the first instance. It is further the case of the complainant that in the first week of February 2005, Smt. Balwant Kaur alongwith accused no. 1 to 5 visited his residence and asked him to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- after assuring him that a sale deed qua the aforesaid property shall be executed in his favour by accused no. 1 to 3, with the help of accused no. 4 & 5. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and dishonestly induces the person deceive to deliver any property to any person, shall be guilty for the offence of cheating and be liable to be punished with imprisonment upto 07 years. In the considered opinion of this ocurt, the conduct of accused no. 1 to 5 in inducing the complainant to pay money to accused no. 1 to 3 on the promise of executing a sale deed w.r.t the aforesaid property in his favour squarely false within the ambit of section 420 IPC, as their subsequent conduct of setting up another Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:19 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.12 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh agreement to sell and transferring the property to accused no. 4 & 5 shows that they had no intention, since inception, to transfer the property to the complainant. The complainant has also been induced to spend an amount of Rs. 5,83,491/-on the repairs of the aforesaid property, on the deception practiced upon him to the effect that the property shall be sold to him. All the accused persons are liable to be summoned for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
The complainant has next alleged the commission of the offences punishable u/s 467/468 and 471 IPC by the accused persons. The pre-requisite for the said offences is making of a false document within the meaning of section 464 IPC. As per section 464 IPC, a person can be said to make a false document, if he dishonestly or fraudulently alters a document in any material part either by himself or by any other person, whether such person living or dead at the time of such alteration. It is the case of the complainant that the accused no. 2 & 3 alongwith Smt.Balwant Kaur had represented themselves to be the owner of the property bearing no. 3/239, Ground Floor, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027 on the basis of agreement to sell I.e. Ex. CW-1/I. However, accused no. 1 to 3 had later on transferred the aforesaid property to accused no. 4 & 5, in connivance with accused no. 4 & 5 on the basis of a forged agreement to sell i.e. Ex. CW-1/H, as per which the owner of the aforesaid property was only Smt. Balwant Kaur. Perusal of the said document prima-facie reveals the commission of forgery, thereby making all the accused persons liable to be summoned for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. Further, as the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:25 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.13 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh document have been forged with the intent to cheat the complainant, the accused persons are also liable to be summoned for the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC.
As this court is of the opinion that the accused persons are liable to be summoned for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC, they cannot be summoned for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC as a person can either be held responsible for forging a document or for using as genuine a forged document.
Qua the offences punishable u/s 472/473 IPC, it is fairly conceded by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the said offences are not made out in the facts of the present case.
The accused persons are also liable to be summoned for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC as the testimony of CW-1 prima- facie establishes that the offences punishable u/s 420/467/468 IPC have been committed by the accused persons in a pre-meditated manner and in connivance with each other.
In view of the aforegoing observations, let accused no. 1 to 5 be summoned for the offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/120-B IPC, on filing of PF, for 26.07.2021.
(Medha Arya) MM-02 (West)/THC/Delhi 01.04.2021"
7. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:30 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.14 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
8. 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, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:35 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.15 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:45:41 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.16 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
9. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:02 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.17 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court". Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:08 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.18 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla Vs. 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 move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:13 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.19 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh 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 and Anr. Vs. 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."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:19 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.20 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. 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 an interlocutory order.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22
16:46:24 -
0200
CR No. 338/2022 Page No.21 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh
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 was followed in K.K. Patel V. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:30 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.22 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:35 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.23 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:40 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.24 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh titled as " Neelam Mahajan and Anr. Vs. 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."
10. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby the revisionists/accused persons were summoned.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:46 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.25 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
After referring number of judgments, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh." {(2013) 15 SCC 624} that order taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused is not an interlocutory order and criminal revision against the same is maintainable.
Hence, in view of the law laid down in Urmila Devi case (supra), it is clear that criminal revision is maintainable against the order of cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused.
11. Now this Court shall proceed to decide the present revision petition on merits.
By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby revisionists/ accused persons were summoned.
The parameters for taking cognizance and summoning order have been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta" {AIR 2019 SC 2499} and it was held that :-
"22. In so far as taking cognizance based on the police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:53 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.26 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh investigation. Investigating Officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the Investigating Officer and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file. In the present case, cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:46:59 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.27 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC, the order for issuance of process without explicitly recording reasons for its satisfaction for issue of process does not suffer from any illegality.
37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors." {Crl. Appeal No.285-287 of 2015 decided on 11/02/2015} that :-
"At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:04 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.28 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr." {AIR 2012 SC 1747} that :-
"Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:10 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.29 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a pre-requisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi"
{AIR 1976 SC 1947} that :-
"At the stage of issuing the process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of the inquiry under s. 202 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited -limited to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (1) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process had been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In proceedings under s. 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standing and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not.."
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:14 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.30 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh
12. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
The complainant (respondent herein) had filed the present complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s. 420/467/468/471/472/473/478/120-B IPC against the accused persons namely S. Attar Singh, S. Gurdarshan Singh, S. Paramjeet Singh, Vinod Arora and Rajan Chopra before the Ld. Trial Court. Vide order dated 24/01/2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court and matter was fixed for pre-summoning evidence. Thereafter, in pre-summoning evidence, complainant had examined himself as CW-1 and HC Naval Kishore as CW-2. Complainant/CW-1 in his testimony in pre-summoning evidence had reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. Complainant/CW-1 in his testimony had relied upon the documents Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/K. Vide impugned order dated 01/04/2021, order on summoning was passed and accused no. 1 to 5 were summoned for the offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC. Now, the matter is fixed for pre- charge evidence before the Ld. Trial Court.
13. Briefly stated the case of the complainant as mentioned in his complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. is that the complainant was the tenant in property in question since September, 2002 and Balwant Kaur (since deceased), accused no.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22
16:47:19 -
0200
CR No. 338/2022 Page No.31 of 39
S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh 2 & 3 were the owners of the property in question. It is also mentioned that in the month of September-October, 2003, an advance receipt-cum-agreement to sell and purchase in respect of property in question was executed between the complainant and Balwant Kaur, accused no. 2 & 3 for the total consideration amount of Rs.12,25,000/- and complainant had paid the part consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000/- vide three cheques dated 30/12/2003 in favour of Balwant Kaur and accused no. 2 & 3. It is also mentioned that it was agreed between the parties that sale deed shall be executed till 31/01/2005 whereas, the agreement to sell was executed on 30/12/2003. It is also mentioned that execution of sale deed was delayed by Balwant Kaur and accused no. 2 & 3 on one pretext or the other and thereafter, the complainant had served legal notices dated 20/01/2005 and 31/01/2005 to Balwant Kaur and accused no. 2 & 3 for execution of sale deed. It is also mentioned that in the first week of February, 2005, a letter was received from the counsel of Balwant Kaur and accused no. 2 & 3 stating that the matter can be settled by amicable means, without going to the Court. It is also mentioned that the matter was considered by the accused persons with dishonesty as they wanted to grab the property in question alongwith the advance payment. It is also mentioned that as per advance receipt-cum-agreement to sell and purchase dated 30/12/2003, the complainant was permitted by the accused persons to do addition, alteration, repairing, white wash, etc. in the property in question and the complainant had spent Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:25 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.32 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh Rs.5,83,491/- on the renovation of the property in question. It is also mentioned that Balwant Kaur and accused no. 2 & 3 in connivance with accused no.1, 4 & 5 had committed forgery, cheating and misappropriation of money of the complainant by criminal breach of trust and they detached the photograph of the accused no.2 and removed the names of accused no. 2 & 3 by typewriting from the original agreement to sell dated 30/11/2001 knowingly that accused no. 2 & 3 had already executed the advance receipt-cum-agreement to sell and purchase in favour of the complainant. It is also mentioned that Balwant Kaur alone had executed an agreement to sell dated 11/04/2005 of the property in question for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the accused no.4 knowingly that the property in question was already under agreement to sell and purchase after receiving Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant. It is also mentioned that in the meanwhile, Balwant Kaur had expired and her husband i.e. accused no.1 knowingly that the property in question was already sold to the complainant by Balwant Kaur, accused no.2 & 3, the accused no.1 had executed a GPA dated 11/04/2005 in favour of the accused no.5. It is also mentioned that thereafter, the complainant had made the complaint vide DD No. 60-B dated 10/07/2015 to the police but no action was taken by the police.
14. It is the contention of the revisionists that the respondent had failed to make the payment of the balance sale consideration amount by 31/01/2005 on the pretext that the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:33 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.33 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh property in question had not been converted from lease-hold to free-hold. It is also the contention of the revisionists that sellers were ready and willing to complete the sale transaction pertaining to the property in question and the respondent was unwilling to pay the remainder of the sale consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/-. It is also the contention of the revisionists that despite the pendency of Civil Suits No. 88/2005 & 125/2006, the complainant had filed the present complaint as an afterthought upon the passing away of Balwant Kaur, belatedly 10 years after the institution of civil proceedings between the parties, in order to give a criminal flavour to the civil disputes between the parties. It is also the contention of the revisionists that the revisionist no. 4, who is a bonafide purchaser, has not received any benefit as the respondent continues to reside in the property in question without payment of any rent whatsoever and no Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the revisionist no. 4. It is also the contention of the revisionists that the revisionist no. 4 was not involved in any of the transactions between the respondent and Balwant Kaur, revisionist no. 2 and 3. It is also the contention of the revisionists that the revisionist no. 1 was not a party to Agreements to Sell dated 30/12/2003 and 11/04/2005. It is also the contention of the revisionists that the revisionist no. 2 and 3 were not the party to the Agreement to Sell dated 11/04/2005. It is also the contention of the revisionists that findings in the Civil Suit No. 88/2005 demolishes the case of the complainant. It is also the contention of the revisionists that prima-facie findings of the Ld. Trial Court Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:38 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.34 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh in the impugned order are not sustainable in law and reflect non- application of the mind. It is also the contention of the revisionists that it is highly suspicious that the respondent has produced a document, which is notarized but does not contain signatures of Balwant Kaur and revisionist no. 2 & 3. It is also the contention of the revisionists that prima-facie there was no material available on Trial Court record for summoning the accused persons/revisionists. It is also the contention of the revisionists that the offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC is not made out against the accused persons/revisionists.
All the aforesaid contentions as raised by the revisionists by way of present revision petition are their defence and the same were not required to be looked into for the purpose of summoning the accused persons by the Ld. Trial Court.
It is well settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, has to see as to whether a prima-facie case has been made out for taking cognizance and summoning the accused. Complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C., testimony of the complainant/CW-1, documents relied upon by the complainant in his complaint as well as testimony and material available on Trial Court record, prima-facie discloses offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC against all accused persons. The contentions of the revisionists/ accused persons have to be decided only in the trial. In view of the law laid down in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, Sonu Gupta, Bhushan Kumar and Nagawwa cases (supra), the aforesaid contentions of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:44 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.35 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh revisionists are not tenable for the purpose of summoning the accused persons.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that suit bearing no.
609773/2016 titled as "Dr. Kumar Rakesh Vs. Balwant Kaur & Ors". for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction was decreed vide judgment dated 12/04/2024 passed by Ld. District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is also pertinent to mention here that suit bearing no. 613831/2016 titled as " Vinod Arora Vs. Dr. Kumar Rakesh". for recovery of possession, arrears of rent/mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction was dismissed vide judgment dated 29/08/2024 passed by Ld. District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Copies of the aforesaid judgments were filed by the parties in the present revision petition. There is no observation in the aforesaid judgments that the accused persons have not committed the offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC.
It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid both judgments in civil cases were passed after the passing of impugned order and same were not available before the Ld. Trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order.
16. There are specific allegations against all accused persons in the complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant as well as testimony of the complainant/CW-1. On perusal of complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C., testimony of the complainant/CW-1, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:49 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.36 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh documents relied upon by the complainant in his complaint as well as testimony and material available on Trial Court record, this Court is of the opinion that there were sufficient material available on record before the Ld. Trial Court for summoning the accused persons for the offence u/s. 420/467/468/120-B IPC.
17. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:47:57 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.37 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.''
18. It is well settled law that the Revisional Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court and the Revisional Court will interfere only, if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored settled principles of law.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
19. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionists, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
20. 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 revisionists is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.22 16:48:03 -0200 CR No. 338/2022 Page No.38 of 39 S. Attar Singh & Ors. V. Dr. Kumar Rakesh 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:
2025.03.22 16:48:09 -0200 Announced in the open Court on 22/03/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 338/2022 Page No.39 of 39