Delhi District Court
Vinay Singal vs Subhash Saini And Ors on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010101992024
Cr. Rev 377/2024
Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors.
Sh. Vinay Singal
S/o Late Sh. Omprakash Singal
R/o K-39, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. ........ REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. Sh. Subhash Saini
S/o Satpal Saini
2. Sh. Suresh Saini
S/o Sh. Satpal Saini
3. Mrs. Manju Saini
W/o Sh. Subhash Saini
4. Mrs. Rekha Saini
W/o Sh. Suresh Saini
All residents of House no. C-475,
Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. ...........RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.09.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 19.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03.02.2026
Digitally
signed by
Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 1Purshotam
of 12
Pathak
Purshotam
Pathak Date:
2026.02.03
16:47:07
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC- 06, South, Saket Court, New Delhi in case no. 226/2022 titled as 'Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors', whereby the Ld. JMFC dismissed the complaint of revisionist.
2. Brief facts as noted by Ld Trial Court in the impugned order are not in dispute and same are being reproduced for the sake of convenience :-
"The case of the complainant in brief is that in December 2020, respondent no 2 and 3 claimed that they have joint ownership with respondent no 3 and 4 of shop no 15 and 16 at Gaur Mall, Gaur City chowk, Noida. He along with his proposed partners were interested to take the shop on lease initially for period of 3 years for setting up and running private liquor showroom. Pursuant to their mutual agreement bayana of Rs 1 lac was made. Later it was discovered that respondents did not have any right, title and interest over the said shop/ restaurant. On confrontation, respondents said that there is some dues that needs to be cleared with the builder and therefore they need sum of Rs 9 lacs towards loan and the same shall be returned to him over a time period of 60 days. On their assurance, amount of Rs. 9 lacs was transferred by him as friendly loan. The amount was never returned him and upon continuous follow ups and reminders the respondents returned amount of Rs. 1 lacs paid by him partner and Rs 3 lacs paid by him. Rs 6 lac is still outstanding. And after follow ups respondents started intimidating him and saying that he shall has to face dire consequences."
3. Thereafter, complainant made a complaint to police at PS Hauz Khas as well as to DCP, South and when no Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 2 of 12 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:10 +0530 action was taken by the police, the complainant filed the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
4. After considering averments made in the complaint and the pre summoning evidence led in support of same, Ld Magistrate dismissed the complaint moved by revisionist vide impugned order. Relevant observations of the Ld Magistrate is being reproduced as under :-
" A perusal of the entire complaint reveals that the allegations as contained in the complaint are civil in nature and are arising out of loan transactions. Complainant had himself alleged that he gave Rs. 9 lacs to respondents as friend loan. Since it was a friendly loan, there was no initial intent to cheat. From the perusal of entire record, there is nothing to show that there was any intention of deceive existed at the time of granting loan. It appear that the intention to deceive if formed by respondents later in the present, is not sufficient to constitute offence of cheating.
It is further pertinent to mention that entire dispute between the parties is with respect to monetary transaction. It is also clear that every breach of promise between the parties cannot take color of criminal misappropriation. Merely for the purpose of recovery of money out of loan transaction, criminal complaint for breach of trust and cheating cannot lie. The recovery of money proceedings can appropriately be initiated in the civil forum for said transactions. The elements of cheating and criminal breach of trust are missing in the case Thus, there is no prima facie ground for proceeding u/s 406/420/506 IPC against respondent.
Thus the present complaint is dismissed u/s 203 CrPC.
Record be sent to record room after due compliance."
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2024 revisionist has preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
Digitally signedCr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 3 of 12 by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:12 +0530 i. that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court suffers from manifest error, illegality, and impropriety.
ii. that the Ld. Magistrate while passing the impugned order failed to consider that the respondent's intention to cheat the petitioner was there right from the inception as they concealed material fact that they had possession of the shop no. 15 and 16 in the Gaur City Mall.
iii. that the Ld. Magistrate while passing the impugned order failed to consider that the allegations levelled against the respondents are criminal in nature as it involves cheating the petitioner by fraudulently extracting money from him firstly under the garb of bayana (advance), then by fraudulently inducing the petitioner to part with Rs.9,00,000/- under the garb of financial assistance. Then illegally retaining the same through deceitful means by making the petitioner believe that the money will be returned and then again by making them falsely believe that the amount will be adjusted from the lease rent to continuously retain the money so extracted from the petitioner.
iv. that the Ld. Magistrate failed to consider that the respondents, inspite of having extracted the money for shop no. 15 and 16, gave the said shop to someone else, which is a sufficient evidence to show the bad intention and well planned strategy to cheat and play fraud upon Digitally Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 4 of 12 signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:15 +0530 the petitioner. This important fact was neither appreciated nor considered by the Ld. Magistrate.
v. that the Ld. Magistrate failed to consider the well settled position of law that to deceive is to make a person believe to be true which the maker knows to be false. Giving the shops, in respect of which the money was already taken and not returned, to someone else is a prima facie evidence of bad and deceitful intention.
vi. that the Ld. Magistrate while making observation in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 336 failed to consider that there was deception played by the respondents at the very inception when they falsely represented that they are already in possession of the aforesaid shop no. 15 and 16 and have the appropriate right, title and interest over the same as a lease holder from the Noida Authority and extracting money as bayana (advance). Then by making the petitioner believe that the money will be returned and then again by making him falsely believe that the amount will be adjusted from the lease rent to continuously retain the money from the petitioner. Thus, fraudulent representation was there from the inception from the respondents side.
vii. that the Ld. Magistrate while making observation in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. The Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 5 of 12 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:17 +0530 State of Gujrat (decided on 3 January, 2019) failed to consider the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the respondents to extract money from the petitioner.
viii. that the Ld. Magistrate erred in considering, the money extracted under the garb of friendly loan with deceitful means and to defraud the petitioner from the very inception with sole intention of extracting the money, amounts to merely a commercial transaction and not cheating.
ix. that the Ld. Magistrate erred to have not considered the allegation with respect to Section 506 of CrPC which is apparent from the order itself where it says "what has to be seen in the present case is whether the ingredient of offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is made out or not". That the entire order is silent with respect to the allegation as regards criminal intimidation by the respondents who indulged in the criminal acts of threatening the petitioner.
6. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and also perused the record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in addition to above grounds has argued that impugned order is illegal. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law by passing the impugned order against the revisionist, thereby dismissing Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 6 of 12 Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:20 +0530 the complaint, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the records available. On the strength of these arguments, revisionist prays for setting aside of the impugned order.
8. Ld. counsel appearing for respondents refuted the said contentions by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness and therefore, the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Before proceeding further, it would apt to recall the note of caution that was voiced by the Apex Court in M/s. Pespi Foods vs. Special Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128. The Apex Court held that summoning of an accused in a Criminal case is a serious matter. The relevant observations at para 26 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 7 of 12 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:23 +0530 examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused".
10. In my considered view, even if the whole case of complainant is taken as true on its face value, then also no offence is made in the present case. The present case is purely civil in nature and it seems that present complaint has been filed by complainant as a pressure tactics. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondents were having any intention to cheat the revisionist since beginning. Rather as per revisionist himself on the assurance of respondents an amount of Rs. 9 lacs was transferred by him as friendly loan. That apart, a payment of Rs.3 lacs was admittedly made by them in favour of revisionist. The only grievance of revisionist is that despite continuous follow ups and reminders the respondents have returned only amount of Rs. 1 lacs paid by his partner and Rs 3 lacs paid by him and an amount of Rs 6 lac is still outstanding. Had there been any intention to cheat since beginning, the respondents would not have returned the amount of 4 lacs to him and Rs. 1 lac to his friend in partial discharge of their liability. Therefore, it is evident that there was no intention to cheat since beginning on the part of respondents.
11. I also do not find any reason to take a view different from what Ld. Magistrate has taken that every breach between the parties can not take colour of criminal Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 8 of 12 Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.02.03 16:47:26 +0530 misappropriation and merely for the purpose of recovery of money out of loan transaction, criminal complaint for breach of trust and cheating can not lie.
12. In Hridya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, in para 15 it was observed as under :-
"15. In determining the question it has to be kept in kind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed..................."
13. Further, in State of Kerala Vs. A Pardeed Pillai and Anr., AIR 1973 SC 326, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention can not be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise.
14. If the present case is tested upon the principles of law as laid down by Apex Court in aforesaid cases, then it is evident that no offence for cheating is made out in the present case and act of the accused can at the most be termed as breach of contract only. Failed obligation and Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 9 of 12 Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.02.03 16:47:28 +0530 frustrated expectations cannot give rise to any criminal liability in my view.
15. Even, Superior Courts have time and again deprecated the initiation of false criminal proceedings in cases having the elements of civil dispute. The quick relief offered by a criminal prosecution as opposed to a civil dispute incentivizes the litigant to initiate false and vexatious proceedings. Moreover, in a country suffering the scourge of world's largest backlog of cases, litigants often view criminal proceedings as a tool to pressurise and obtain a favourable settlement from other side.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Sagar Suri Vs State of UP, Crl Appeal No.91/2000, date of decision 28.01.2000 has categorically observed as under :-
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
17. Further, in case titled as M/s Indian Oil Corporation VS M/s NEPC India Ltd & Ors, in Appeal (Crl) No. 834/2002 date of judgment 20.07.2006, Hon'ble Apex court has observed as under:-
Digitally Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 10 of 12 signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.03 16:47:31 +0530 "While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged".
18. Revisionist has also alleged that respondents had threatened him with dire consequences. However, it is evident from record that the allegations have been made in a very bald manner and there is nothing to suggest that revisionist got alarmed with the alleged threats. Therefore, no offence under section 506 IPC is made out in the present case (Ref. Noble Mohan Dass Vs. State Madras High Court 1988).
19. It is settled law that summoning of accused is a serious matter and complainant should bring on some material before an accused can be summoned in the court. In the present complaint, there is nothing on record on the basis of which respondents could have been summoned by Ld Trial Court as the matter is purely civil in nature. In my considered view, Ld Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint of revisionist. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the present petition is devoid of any merit hence stands dismissed. Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.02.03 16:47:34 +0530 Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 11 of 12
20. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial court along with copy of judgment.
21. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.02.03
16:47:37
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
th
03 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 12 signed pages) Cr. Rev 377/2024 Vinay Singal Vs. Subhash Saini and Ors. Page No. 12 of 12