Delhi District Court
Rinky Singh vs State And Anr on 6 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC) (RC):
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
CNR No. DLSW01-005593-2024
CR No.1946/2024
In the matter of :
Rinky Singh
R/o : D-8/8178, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110 070. ...... Revisionist
Vs.
1. State NCT of Delhi,
2. Mukul Kumar,
President
IOCL Officers Welfare Society,
3. Alok K. Roy,
Vice President,
IOCL Officers Welfare Society,
4. B. K. Sharma,
Secretary
IOCL Officers Welfare Society,
G-2B-303, Golf Link Residency,
Sector 18-B, Pocket 2, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075.
....Respondents
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 15
Date of institution of Revision : 07.06.2024
Date on which order reserved : 17.01.2026
Date on which order pronounced : 06.05.2026
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned MM-06, South- West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.952/2023 titled as 'Rinkey Singh v. Mukul Kumar & Ors.' whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/complainant for registration of FIR was dismissed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant (revisionist herein) has filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. stating therein that in the year 2013, the complainant had put hard earned money into the project in 2013 and paid sum of Rs.5100 for membership No.4626 on 20.07.2013 as non-refundable membership charge and share money and also paid Rs.2 lacs on 08.07.2013 as advance for procurement of his share of land for Flat in L-Zone. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000 on 09.07.2013 and Rs.1,36,000 on 04.09.2013 as advance payment for procurement of his share of land for flat in L- Zone. It is further alleged therein that due to long delay in CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 15 housing project, on 13.08.2019 the complainant requested for withdrawal of membership and in September 2019 after 8th AGM, Society communicated to members to submit option for refund. On 20.09.2019, the complainant opted for withdrawal and on 23.09.2019 the complainant gave her consent of no objection cum withdrawal declaration stating that he wishes to discontinue with the IOCL Officers Welfare Society due to personal reasons. The complainant also requested to cancel the booking of flats and refund of Rs.17,00,000/- and Rs.5100/- paid by him. It is further alleged that on 05.10.2019, the documents were received by the Society and on 09.10.2019, Society assured the complainant to refund after 21.11.2019 however despite repeated requests, the Society did not refund his money. It is further alleged that thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint to SHO PS Dwarka North, however, no heed was paid to his complaint and therefore, the complainant approached the learned Trial Court by filing complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
3. Vide impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist observing that the alleged commission of offence are within his reach and knowledge to prosecute the respondents and he can himself procure evidence and any custodial interrogation or any field investigation is not essential in this case and the matter was listed for PSE.
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 15
4. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the same on following grounds that:
a) That the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous and is contrary to the said legal law and, hence, requires to be set aside in the interest of justice.
b) That the accused persons, in furtherance of a common dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of making the promise of delivery of a 4BHK (1700 sqft) house to the petitioner, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the petitioner to deposit an amount of INR 17,00,000 (Seventeen Lakhs Only) and INR 5.100 (Five Thousand and One Hundred) towards the consideration amount and membership amount respectively and dishonestly misappropriated the said entrusted property with the intention to retain the property and converted it to their own use which was against the legal contract made.
touching the discharge of such trust. The accused persons were definitely committed to co operate for the accomplishment of the above stated unlawful act.
c) The the learned Trial Court ought to have read the complaint under the light of the bare text of the section 405 of IPC. The gist of the section says that to constitute the offence under Sec. 405 of IPC there must be a dishonest misappropriation by a person on whom confidence is placed and to the custody and management of the property in respect of which the breach of trust is charged. In the present case, all the ingredients of Section 405 are directly and prima facie involved. The petitioner in a good faith and trust placed on the accused persons, paid huge money to the accused persons. After pocketing major chunk of the sale consideration, the accused persons did not even bother to start the construction of the housing society.
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 15
d) That all the ingredients of Section 405 IPC are present in the present complaint and this very important fact ought not to have been missed out by the learned trial court while deciding the matter and on this sole ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set asided.
e) That DDA had not issued any licence or approval to any housing project including IOCL Officers Welfare Society in land pooling policy in Dwarka. Delhi nor in any other land pooling zone nor authorised any developer/ builder/society/company including the IOCL Officers Welfare Society to offer any flat/plot in the name of DDA at the land pooling policy. Thus, without the necessary approvals and licenses, the accused persons had no right to induce the petitioner to invest her hard earned money into a project that was illegal. This clearly proves that the accused persons had deceived the petitioner into believing in the rosy picture of owning a 4BHK (1700 sqft) house in Delhi which they never intended to deliver in the first place, and thereby dishonestly induced the petitioner to advance and invest money in an illegal project. Thus, accused persons cheated. That the accused persons had deceived the petitioner into believing that this was a DDA approved project and they accordingly had the license to provide for affordable housing in Delhi and had performed their part of the contract, thereby were in the right to demand for more money upon the reduction of FAR from 400 to 200, and thereby dishonestly tried to induce the petitioner to pay more money.
f) That the accused persons have illegally taken a major chunk of the sale consideration from the petitioner when they did not even have the license from the DDA to construct such a housing project by painting a rosy picture of affordable housing in Metropolitan City like Delhi, knowing that that they would cause wrongful loss to the petitioner whose interest in the transaction to which cheating relates, accused persons were bound by the legal contract as well as by law, to protect.
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 15
g) That the accused persons had dishonestly induced the petitioner to deliver an amount of Rs. 17,05,100/- to the accused persons under the garb of DDA's land pooling policy when they did not even have the license to built a housing project, illegally lured the petitioner to invest in the project which was not yet viable in the eyes of law.
h) That the learned Trial Court has made serious mistake by coming to the erroneous conclusion and without appreciating the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint which had clearly showed the malafide intention on the part of accused persons passed the impugned order. A proper investigation needs to conducted on the directions of the Court to establish the fact that the petitioner was indeed a victim of a huge economic offence at the hands of the accused persons.
i) That the learned Trial Court made an error in judgement by relying on a faulty observation made by the Investigating Officer that the dispute is not of the criminal nature but of the civil nature. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priti Saraf & Anr v State (NCT of Delu) & Anr. (2021) 16 SCC 142 and in case Liberty Garden Co-op. Housing Society Lid. v K.T. Group & Ors Contempt Petition No. 20 of 2018 in Arbitration Petition No.247 of 2017 of the Bombay High Court.
j) That the learned trial court made an error by not considering the fact that the accused persons had even agreed on allowing the petitioner to withdraw from the membership of the society and agreed to return the money which was done for some members according to pick and choose policy, however, the accused persons went back on their promise and continued to retain the hard-earned money of the petitioner. This conduct casts a doubt on the accused persons and such a question requires a fair and impartial Trial and hence, the Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders.
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 15
k) That the learned trial court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner had issued multiple legal notices and emails to the accused persons, wherein it is specifically pointed out that the accused persons ought to refund the petitioner, however, the accused persons did not care to consider the request of the petitioner. This fact is sufficient to prove that the offence is committed by the accused persons. By overlooking this fact, the learned trial court concluded that the dispute is not of the criminal nature but of the civil nature. On this sole ground the court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order.
l) That the learned trial court ought to have considered that in the present case that petitioner had already deposited a major chunk of payment of sale consideration. However, the accused persons, with an evil intention to get some more money from the petitioner, misappropriated the amount to their own use. This conduct of the accused persons shows the criminal element involved in this dispute. It becomes crystal clear case of criminal breach of trust and the learned trial court ought to have appreciated this aspect before concluding that this is a dispute of civil nature.
m) That the accused persons has committed criminal breach of trust by not even beginning the construction of the housing society and taking hard earned money of innocent investors like the petitioner by painting a rosy picture of owning an affordable housing in Delhi in spite of not having the licence from the appropriate authority ie DDA in the first place. It is prima focie case of cheating and therefore the learned MM-06 ought not to have arrived at erroneous conclusion that the dispute involved in this petition is not of the criminal nature. Thus, on this ground also the court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order.
n) That even otherwise also the impugned orders are ex facie erroneous, contrary to the facts and circumstances of CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 15 the case, pleadings of the parties and settled legal position.
o) That the petitioner has no other alternative, equally efficacious remedy, save and except to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC.
5. This court has heard the contentions from both the sides and has perused the judicial record.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONIST
6. It is contended by the counsel for revisionist that the learned trial court has passed the order in a mechanical manner. That the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law as the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the respondents had fraudulently induced the revisionist and other members to believe and to contribute funds under the false pretext of a DDA approved Land Pooling Policy (LPP). It is further argued that respondents had provided false assurances of 'imminent resolution' and thereby, dishonestly induced for financial contributions continuing chain of criminal acts designed to unlawfully enrich themselves at the expense of members. It is further argued that the DDA had not issued any licence or approval to any housing project including IOCL Officers Welfare Society in land pooling policy in Dwarka nor in any other land pooling zone nor authorized any developer builder society company including the IOCL officers welfare society to offer any flat in the name of DDA at the land pooling policy. It is further argued that there are ingredients of committal of offences of CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 15 sections 405, 415, 418 & 420 IPC in the complaint however, the same have not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court. It is further argued that the conduct of the respondents shows the criminal element involved in this dispute, which the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated. It is further argued that gravity of fraud was revealed when DDA and EOW Delhi Police issued cautionary notices warning the public that such so called welfare societies had no approval from DDA or RERA and this proves that the respondents misled the public with false documents and fraudulent representations attracting sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. It is further argued that the criminal antecedents of the respondents demonstrate their habitual fraudulent conduct as they were the accused in FIR No. 432/2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 120B and 34 IPC. It is further argued that the impugned order is ex facie, erroneous contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings and settled legal position. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the following judgments
1) Ashok Kumar vs. State Crl.M.C. 4646/2023, DHC;
2)Padam Kumar Dagar Vs. State, Bail Appl 1198/2022/DHC.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF REVISIONIST
NO.1/STATE.
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 15
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the state argued that police investigation is necessary in the present case as the respondents were not authorized to collect money for land pooling policy. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has relied upon the Judgment of "Dr. Neha Srivastava vs. State of Delhi, 2024/DHC/5785".
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2TO 4.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4 has argued that that the order passed by the learned Trial Court requires no intervention and has been passed after considering all the materials that was placed before it. Respondents have relied upon "M/S White Fields Overseas Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 DHC/10403" and "Pooja Taneja vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2016, DHC/8033".
LAW, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.
9. It is settled law that where the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, FIR must be registered. If the police declines to register an FIR, it is open to the complainant to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of complaint. Upon receiving any such application, the Magistrate may either direct the registration of FIR or he may proceed to examine the witnesses of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. instead of directing an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has wide powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which ought to be exercised judicially towards meeting the ends of justice.
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 10 of 15
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Subhkaran Laharuka and Anr. Vs. State and Anr., MANU/DE/1646/2010 laid down the guidelines for subordinate Courts for the procedure to be followed while dealing with the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. It was observed thus :-
"52A. For the guidance of subordinate courts, the procedure to be followed while dealing with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is summarized as under:-
(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court, the Complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed as an accused in the Complainant. It should also be examined what action was taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the Police, when approached by the Complainant under Section 154(3) of the Code.
(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons arrayed in the Complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction.
He should also satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the Police in the matter. A preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind and such application of mind should be reflected in the Order passed by him.
Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing`, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing final orders.
iii) The Magistrate, when approached with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code, should CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 11 of 15 invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the Complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report under Section 202 of the Code.
(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the Complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code."
11. It is needless to mention that the Magistrate should be satisfied whether the direction of police investigation is necessary for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor which can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned at the instance of the complainant or if the matter is such that which calls for investigation by a State agency, the learned Magistrate may order registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
12. In the present case, the allegations of the revisionist are that he had obtained membership in the IOCL Officers Welfare CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 12 of 15 Society by paying Rs. 5100/- and made advance payment of Rs.2 lacs on 08.07.2013, Rs. 1,40,000/- on 09.07.2013 and also for paying Rs. 13,60,000/- on 04.09.2013 for procurement of land. Due to the long delay in the said housing project, the revisionist requested for discontinuance of his membership and sought refund of his money. It is the allegations of the complainant that despite assurance, the society did not refund his money and therefore, he has filed the present complaint.
13. It is contended that the complainant has been cheated by the respondents as the respondents have dishonest intention since inception and they had not refunded the money of the complainant voluntarily which shows their guilty mind. It is further contended that the respondents misrepresented the land pooling policy and they had no authorization from the DDA regarding the land pooling policy. It is contended that the money of the complainant has been enjoyed by the respondents since decades. It is further contended that investigation is required regarding the siphoning of the money by the respondents and the account needs to be seen the by the investigating agency. It is further contended that the respondents are not registered with RERA and they are not authorized to collect money on account of land pooling policy.
14. In the present case, the allegations are of cheating and criminal beach of trust. It is settled law that to constitute that the offence of cheating, there must be dishonest CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 13 of 15 intention since the beginning and for the offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be entrustment, demand and refusal with dishonest intention. The complainant is the wife of Sh. M.P.Singh who was working as an officer with IOCL and who voluntarily became member of the society and made contribution towards the land cost in the year 2014. There are stated to be 3000 members of the society, however, there is no complaint from any other member except the complainant. The land pooling policy was notified in the year 2013 and it was further amended in the year 2018. It is not in dispute that the society has purchased 92.3 acre of land in L-Zone and the same has been submitted to DDA for land pooling policy. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has been returned his money by the society.
15. From the allegations, this court does not find any deception being caused to the complainant with dishonest intention since inception, thus, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted in the present case. As far as the section of Section 406 IPC are concerned, it is also an admitted fact that money of complainant has been returned by the society. Thus, the offence of Section 406 IPC also does not seem to be attracted in the present case.
16. By way of the present complaint, the complainant seeks roving inquiry in to the matter by alleging that the accounts of the society needs to be assessed. The purpose of Section 156(3) Cr.PC. is not to make roving inquiry. The Ld. Trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Section CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 14 of 15 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the reason that no custodial interrogation, recovery of article or discovery of fact is to be effected from the respondents and there is no compelling reason for what purpose the investigation is necessary. It is rightly observed that the complainant can himself procure evidence as the same is well within her reach.
17. This court has not reason to differ with the findings of the Ld. Trial Court. No interference is warranted. The involvement of investigating agency is not necessary in the present case.
18. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
19. A copy of this order be given to revisionist and be also sent to the learned Trial Court for information along with the Trial Court Record.
20. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
SUSHIL by SUSHIL
ANUJ TYAGI
Announced in the open Court ANUJ Date:
TYAGI 2026.05.06
as on this 6th day of May, 2026 15:52:54 +0530
(SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC (RC)
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS/DELHI
06.05.2026(ak)
CR No.1946/2024 Rinkey Singh v. State & Ors. Page No. 15 of 15