Delhi District Court
Satish Jain vs State on 17 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 227/2025
CNR No: DLST01006802-2025
Satish Jain,
S/o Late Sh. Attarsain Jain,
R/o House No. 306, Kahakra, Bagpat, U.P,
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. State
(Through Chief Secretary NCT of Delhi)
2. OFB TECH Pvt. Ltd.
G-22C, (UGF), D-1, (K-84), Green Park,
New Delhi-110016.
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.05.2025
Date on which Order was reserved : 14.10.2025
Date on which Order pronounced : 17.10.2025
AND
Criminal Revision No.: 244/2025
CNR No: DLST01007241-2025
1. Shakti Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Singh,
R/o H.No. 881, near Chota Shiv Mandir,
Alipur, Delhi-110036.
2. Tamanna
W/o Shakti Singh
R/o H.No. 881, near Chota Shiv Mandir,
Alipur, Delhi-110036.
.......Revisionists
Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 1
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:53:57 +0530
Versus
1. The State of NCT of Delhi
(Through ACP EOW SEC-VI)
2. OFB TECH Pvt. Ltd.
Office 6th Floor, Tower-A,
Global Business Park, M.G. Road,
Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.05.2025
Date on which Order was reserved : 14.10.2025
Date on which Order pronounced : 17.10.2025
ORDER
The two separate revision petitions titled as Satish Jain Vs. State & Anr bearing revision no. 227/2025 and Shakti Singh Vs. State & Ors bearing revision no. 244/2025 are directed against the order dated 13.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Ld. CJM South Saket Courts, New Delhi.
A. The brief averments of the revisionist Satish Jain as per revision petition bearing no. 227/2025 is that revisionist Satish Jain is the proposed accused in the present matter. It is further averred in the petition that SI Amit from EOW had called him for the inquiry to the applicant/proposed accused in complaint filed by the OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd/respondent no. 2. It is further averred that the applicant/proposed accused have some civil disputes with the complainant company.
1. It is further averred in the petition that the son of revisionist, Vaibhav Jain had lodged a FIR bearing no. 260/2025 PS Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 2
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:54:15 +0530
DLF Phase-I Gurugaon, Haryana against the directors and some employees of the complainant company.
2. It is further averred that in counter blast, the complainant company had authorized more than 15 persons for filing complaint on their level in different States and for alleged financial scam in the company.
3. It is further averred in the petition that in this regard, the complainant company have only registered office at Delhi and all operations are being run from Gurgaon, Haryana and all the allegations are belongs to Haryana State.
4. It is further averred that the aforesaid complainant company had initially filed a criminal complaint against the revisionist/proposed accused and his son Vaibhav Jain and other proposed accused persons at EOW, Gurgaon, Haryana.
5. It is further averred that the EOW, Gurugaon had conducted a long inquiry around 3 months and all the proposed accused persons were called and were interrogated.
6. It is further averred that the said complainant company had failed to find fruitful result in its favour and after that other authorized representative had filed another complaint against revisionist/proposed accused at Bagpat, U.P. It is further averred that the complainant company got success in registering the FIR bearing no. 369/2024 against the son of the revisionist/accused Vaibhav Jain U/s 316(2)/318(4) of BNS. It is further averred that the matter was transferred to Crime Branch, Meerut, UP and that matter is under the investigation.
7. It is further averred in the petition that the IO of Crime Branch, Meerut had called all the proposed accused persons for Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 3
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17
15:54:30 +0530
investigation. It is further averred that Ld Sessions Court of District Bagpat, UP had granted bail to the son of revisionist/accused Vaibhav Jain and all other proposed accused persons who were under the scanner in that case.
8. It is further averred that all the proposed accused persons are joining investigation on regular basis at Bagpat and the case was further transferred to Meerut Crime Branch for the investigation. It is further averred that the complainant company had already started civil recovery process against the proposed accused persons.
9. It is further averred that the son of revisionist/proposed accused were just a small level employee of the complainant company and other proposed accused persons were the vendor of the complainant company.
10. It is further averred that now the complainant company had filed a new complaint against revisionist/proposed accused at EOW , Delhi. It is further averred that on the application U/s 175(3) BNSS bearing no. CT case /710/2025, the Ld. CJM, South Saket had passed the impugned order.
11. The revisionist had challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:-
a. That the order dated 13.05.2025 is still not uploaded on the website of the Court.
b. That the revisionist/proposed accused got the order dated 13.05.2025 and the said order was passed without applying the judicial mind.
c. That in the above said order in the para 5 dated 13.05.2025, it is mentioned that the proposed accused no. 16 is the father or the Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 4
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:54:37 +0530
proposed accused no. 13 and 17 (proprietorship firms running from the same address run by husband and wife). The fact is that there are no relations between proposed accused no. 13 and 17. It is further averred that proposed accused persons no. 13 and 17 are husband and wife.
d. That the revisionist/proposed accused came to know that more than 200 criminal and civil cases are pending against complainant company and it's director.
e. That the senior officials of the complainant company namely Sh. Tamresh Singh, Senior Manager, CS Lokesh Garg and CEO Ashish Mohpatra are on Court bail in the matter before 62/2024 at PS EOW.
f. That the complainant company had alleged that the son of proposed accused Satish Jain namely Vaibhav Jain, who has been employed with OFB Tech Pvt Ltd for the last 2.5 years as a member of the Agri Team of OFB Tech Pvt Ltd having its address at 7 th floor, Global Business Park, Sector-26 Gurgaon-12202. It is further averred that the son of the revisionist had joined the OFB/company on 03rd August, 2022 as per employee code at Agri Team of OFB Tech Pvt Ltd.
g. That the complainant company had alleged that Vaibhav Jain has been employed as a Manager of the General Trade vertical of the Agri Team and Vaibhav Jain through his own firm Attarsen Vinod Kumar & other associates had systematically defrauded the complainant company INR 22.5 cr. in his complaint before EOW, Gurugaon. It is also alleged by the complainant company that he had committed a scam of around 28 Crore in his complaint at Bagpat, U.P. However, the complainant company did not disclose the cheated amount in his present complaint. The allegation of Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 5
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:54:43 +0530
systematically defrauding the complainant company of Rs. 22.5 Crore is totally baseless and without evidence.
h. It is further averred that the other allegation against the son of revisionist/proposed accused is that he had used to bill the customers 5 times to 10 times of the specified limit in the system without top management information. It is also alleged that he used to use the 'BILL to SHIP TO' model where he had created a multiple related concern parties for the purpose of getting limit & shipping all material to his own firm Attarsen Vinod Kumar & Yuvika Traders (known firm of Vaibhav Jain). However, all the said working of Vaibhav Jain was on very low/small level and the top management of the company used to decide the limits on the basis of the report under writer/credit team of the clients. It is further averred that there are civil disputes among the OFB and other clients/firms and the OFB company had issued demand notices to 10 to 12 clients/firms and if the material were not supplied and fake billings were done by the revisionist, then how can the OFB/complainant company had issued demand notices.
I. That the complainant company had alleged that the son of proposed accused had without the knowledge of anyone in the complainant company took the credit of the company name from Shambhu Technology and had asked his immediate junior (Mr. Rishab Choudhary) to give receiving without knowing anyone in the system. However, the purchase order were prepared by the Operation Team of the company and the same were issued by the Finance Team. It is further averred that BILL to SHIP model was a very common practice in the OFB/complainant company and the same pattern were used by the complainant company for business with the Gupta Traders, Balaji Ananaya Sugar. It is further averred Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 6
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:54:51 +0530
that the complainant company had done a business of around 100 Crore rupees with Gupta Traders in last two years. It is further averred that dispute was civil in nature and demand notices were accordingly issued by the complainant company to the ARP.
j. That the other allegations are that all his parties turned out to be bogus when OFB demanded its receivables. However, the complainant company had not given any complete details of the alleged parties.
k. It is further averred that the IO of the EOW, Delhi had approached to IO Crime Branch, Meerut about the status of all the proposed accused persons and he replied that all the proposed accused persons had been summoned and under scanner of his investigation in that case.
12. The revisionist Satish Jain had prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 of the Ld. CJM, South Saket.
B. The brief averments of the revisionists Shakti Singh and Tammana in revision petition no. 244/2025 are that there are allegations against respondent no. 2/OFB Tech. Pvt Ltd that their employees namely Vaibhav Jain, Rishab Jain and father of Vaibhav Jain namely Satish Kumar Jain in collusion with different vendors had cheated the company to the tune of Rs. 22.5 Crores and have filed multiple complaints in different States. It is further averred that firstly the respondent no. 2/complainant had filed a complaint in PS Khekda, Bhagpat, U.P which was converted in FIR bearing no. 369/2024 dated 28.10.2024 U/s 316(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023 and thereafter the respondent no. 2/complainant had filed a complaint before the EOW, Gurugram, however after the preliminary inquiry, the said complaint was referred to PS Khekda, Bhagpat, U.P for further investigation as investigation was already Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 7
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:55:01 +0530
going on in case registered FIR with PS Khekda, Bhagpat, U.P. It is further averred that thereafter, the respondent no. 2/complainant had approached to the EOW, Delhi for the registration of FIR and simultaneously filed an application U/s 175(3) before the Ld. CJM Saket for registration of second FIR.
1. It is further averred that as per the complaints filed by the respondent no. 2/complainant and the impugned order, the allegations in brief are as follows :-
2. That Vaibhav Jain who was working with the respondent no. 2 as Assistant Sales Manager and he was tasked with managing the sugar business in Delhi and nearby areas for the company and procure new clients for the company. It is further alleged that during his employment with the company, he allegedly colluded with his father who was running a proprietorship firm M/s. Attarsen Vinod Kumar, to misappropriate funds that should have been deposited into the company's accounts causing the complainant loss of several crores.
3. It is further alleged that this fraudulent activity went unnoticed for a significant period until the company began to realize that the payments were not being received as expected.
4. It is further alleged that during the investigation it was revealed that initially the Vaibhav Jain set the credit limits for these buyer firms at Rs. 15-20 lakh, which was later increased by him to Rs. 2-3 Crores. This manipulation allowed him to take larger orders without raising immediate suspicion, that he would take sugar orders from different firms ( who has been arrayed as accused persons by the respondent no. 2) and send them to Rishabh Chaudhary, who was also working in the company's office and was responsible for preparing invoices based on Vaibhav Jain's Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 8
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:55:16 +0530
instructions. However, instead of delivering all the sugar to the buyers, Vaibhav Jain would sell a portion of the same in open market, and took all the profits.
5. It is further averred that subsequent to this and for thorough investigation, the complainant had filed a complaint in PS Khekra, Baghapat, UP stating that the said persons have embezzled the company's money in collusion with other persons, after which the investigation regarding the same was initiated at PS Khekra, Baghpat, UP. It is further averred that in connection to the said FIR, the present revisionist was called by the investigation officer to join the investigation and the revisionists had duly complied with the same.
6. It is averred that subsequently the respondent no. 2/complainant had filed a complaint before the EOW, Gurugram for the same transactions and the EOW, Gurugram had also carried out the preliminary investigation and in the said investigation after examining the transporter, it came to record that the alleged sugar for non payment of which the respondent no. 2 had levelled allegations against the revisionists was never supplied to them instead the same supplied to Satish Jain's firm in Baghpat, U.P rather than to Delhi as claimed by the respondent no. 2. It is averred that subsequently, when the EOW, Gurugram came to know about the already registered FIR, they transferred the complaint filed before them to PS Khekra, Baghpat, UP for further investigation.
7. It is averred that not being satisfied with this, the complainant then filed a third complaint before the EOW, Delhi claiming to be a office Delhi as well and then filed an application U/s 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 before Ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 9
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17
15:55:32 +0530
8. It is averred that despite being aware of all the facts of the alleged offence and having knowledge of a existing FIR registered at PS Khekra, Baghpat, UP on the same set of facts, the Ld. CJM was pleased to pass an order directing ACP Economic Offence Wing to convert the contents of complaint as FIR and investigate the matter fairly.
9. It is further averred that it is pertinent to mention here that the FIR bearing No. 369 was registered on 28.10.2024 U/s 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and investigation is still going on and therefore, directing the officials to file a new FIR on the same set of facts is impermissible in law. It is averred that Ld. CJM has observed in its order that the accused are different in the FIR registered at Baghpat and the complaint filed before Ld. CJM, South. It is pertinent to mention here that the existing FIR is against Vaibhav Jain, Rishabh Chaudhary and Satish Kumar Jain and others, in others the investigating officer had asked different vendors to join the investigation, who has been arrayed as proposed accused persons in the complaint before Ld. CJM and Vaibhav Jain has been left out whereas mainly the allegations are against him only in the present complaint also in desperate effort to create fresh set of allegations.
10. It is averred that the present revisionists have been arrayed as proposed accused persons at serial no. 17 and 13.
11. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order passed by Ld. CJM South Saket on the following grounds:-
a. That the impugned order is intrinsically bad for the reason that the Ld. CJM Court had failed to appreciate the fact that a FIR regarding the said offence and transaction has already been registered and the investigation is in its due course. Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 10
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:55:40 +0530
b. That the Ld. CJM had failed to acknowledge the settled
position of law that second FIR was on the same set of allegations is impermissible.
c. That Ld. CJM had also failed to consider the findings of the EOW, Gurugram, stating that the FIR has already been filed and filing of another FIR will only result in unnecessary delay in further investigation.
d. That the role of all the proposed accused persons have already been investigated by UP Police, pursuant to FIR bearing No. 369 registered on 28.10.2024 U/s 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.
e. That the direction to register fresh FIR, factually on the same set of allegations would be a travesty of justice, which would result in unnecessary harassment to the revisionists as they are already been investigated.
f. That Ld. CJM had failed to consider the fact that there was no specific allegation against the present revisionists, the only allegation against the revisionists is that Vaibhav Jain had committed forgery in the record of the company by mentioning the name of M/s. Shivdhan in the purchase orders, it is beyond logic that how can revisionists can be held liable for the forgery committed by third person in the records of the company, it is pertinent to mention here that whatever goods were received by the revisionists, they have made payments for the same, nothing remains due towards them on account of the company. The allegations that revisionists have not made payment qua some shipments as alleged by the respondent no. 2 before the EOW, Gurugram already fall flat as the concerned transporter submitted before the EOW, Gurugram that the said goods were supplied at Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 11
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:55:47 +0530
Bhagpat, not to the revisionists, therefore, there was no allegation against the revisionists, even then the direction of FIR has been issued against the revisionists.
C. The impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court has been reproduced as under:-
CT Cases/710/2025 OFB TECH PVT LTD Vs. STATE 13.05.2025 ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 175(3) BNSS
1. Vide this order, this Court shall proceed to decide the application filed under Section 175(3) BNSS by the complainant against the proposed accused persons.
2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the present matter is succinct as per the complainant is that the complainant is engaged in the business of supply of building and construction materials, is submitting the complaint on behalf of the company for registering an FIR against the Accused(s) for committing various crimes. The Accused No. 2 was an employee of the Complainant who was an immediate Deputy and was working with Vaibhav Jain who was also an employee of the Complainant and was employed as Manager-Sales (General Trade-Sugar Division). Mr. Vaibhav Jain was heading the Agricultural Sales Division (Sugar mostly) of the complainant and being in the Sales Division, the Complainant had entrusted Accused No. 2 and Mr. Vaibhav Jain to identify potential buyers of Sugar Trade for the complainant. On the instructions and guidance of Accused No. (3), his son Vaibhav Jain and Accused No. 2 cheated the Complainant company alongwith several other Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 12 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17 PANDEY 15:55:59 +0530 vendors who were not even genuine entities in the relevant field of business of sugar.
3. It is stated that the Accused No. 3-17 were on boarded by Accused No. 2 and Vaibhav Jain on the instruction of Accused No. 3 Mr. Satish Kumar Jain. It was Accused No. 3 who orchestrated the entire conspiracy and provided the list of accused Nos. 3-17, who were known to him, including his own proprietorship concern to Accused No. 2 and Vaibhav Jain into the system of the Complainant and projected them as "Sugar Customers". On the inducement of Accused No. 2 and 3 and with the assistance of Vaibhav Jain, the Underwriter Team of the complainant company had assigned credit limit to every customer for easy connivance, not realizing that these customers were nothing but dummy buyers created by Accused No. 3, Accused No. 2 and Vaibhav Jain. An illustration is given before to explain how General Trade work in the agricultural and how using the system, the accused persons cheated and duped the Complainant.
4. It is further stated that Sugar is supplied by Company X (Supplier) to the Complainant (who adds its Margin and Credit fees) and in turn supplies the same to Customers (identified and on boarded by Vaibhav Jain). For this Transaction Purchase orders is issued by Complainant upon Supplier and Supplier raises invoices on Complainant, further Customer shall raise Purchase Order Upon the Complainant and the Complainant would raise invoices on Customer.
5. It is further stated that the Accused No.2 and Mr. Vaibhav Jain while working as agents/representatives of the Complainant, on the inducement of the Accused No.3 induced the top management and cheated them. They through Complainant's system Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 13
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17
15:56:38 +0530
and software used to raise forged Purchase Orders on the Suppliers wherein on behest of the Complainant Company, Purchase Orders were raised upon Suppliers for supply of sugars to the on boarded customers to whom credit by the underwriter team was sanctioned as per the limit but the actual material was shipped to Accused No. 13/17 (proprietorship firms running from same address run by husband and wife) or Accused No.16 who is the father of the Accused Person. All the Accused Persons as mentioned above in the recital were in total connivance and Conspiracy with each other, in a pre-planned manner orchestrated and started a Ponzi scheme with the sole intent to cause wrongful gain to themselves and causing wrongful loss to the Complainant. In reality they were mere 'Raashan ki dukaan and Parchoon ki dukaan' which were acting as sugar traders.
6. It is further stated that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with Vaibhav Jain assisted and helped in cheating the Complainant being inside/ working for the Complainant, through different suppliers and cheated the Complainant over a period of time. Most of the accused did not even have a valid GST HSN for dealing in sugar. The Accused persons in collusion with each other falsely being projected as customers to the Complainant. They were as stated above, Raashan ki dukaan' and Parchoon ki dukaan or soap manufacturers or stationary shops having no relation to or connection to the business of sugar or any other Agricultural Commodities. However, making them as dummy buyers/ customers of the Complainant, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with Vaibhav Jain used to Bill huge quantity of agri products (mostly large Quintals of Sugar) for more than 2 years. The Invoices were raised onto wrong address of the Complainant.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 14
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:57:24 +0530
7. It is further stated that Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain were entrusted with the internal software of the Complainant. They misused Company's automated system to raise Purchase Orders for supply of Sugar Consignment to its Suppliers which they were not authorized. Some of the Purchase Orders raised on behalf of the Complainant to ARP Traders, Shambu Technologies and Gupta Traders were never authorized but the top management of Complainant. They induced the top management of Complainant to make advance payments and clear all the payments/dues to the Supplier and after adding margin and interest of behalf of the Complainant used to raise invoices to Accused Nos. 3 to 17. However, in those purchase orders, Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain used to bill to OFB/Complainant and add name of the Customer as Consignee but used to add address of only Accused No.13 and Accused No. 17 which were operating from the same address. Even though the Accused No.17 was not on boarded as a vendor but still the Accused person(s) manually added it through the Complainant without the knowledge of the Complainant.
8. It is further stated that the Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain used to raise invoices on behalf of the Complainant to their Identified Customers but they clandestinely used to ship mostly (70%) of its material to Accused No.3, and rest to Accused No.13 and 17 wherein both the firms belong to the same person and are registered at a same place. Further, when the material used to reach at their address, Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain used to sell that material in open market and receive payments for it in cash. For the above-mentioned transactions on behalf of all Customers (the accused persons/ fake buyers), Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain used deposit cash in account of Complainant or used to cause these customers to make some payments done only with the intent to Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 15
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:57:34 +0530
cheat the complainant to ensure that the Complainant would falsely start believing that Customers were genuine and limits of the credit and material supply would increase by the underwriters of the Complainant.
9. It is further stated that for the payments made to the Complainant by the accused persons cash was being deposited into the bank account of the Complainant by Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain. It is further stated that all the Invoices wherein it is portrayed that material is billed to and ship to customer are also falsely created by the said two abovenamed accused as material never in actuality was received by these customers. Accused persons specially accused Nos. 4 to 17 were active participants of this conspiracy and were well aware of the Ponzi scheme being run by Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain along with Accused No.3. The fake and flimsy transactions were being done by Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain on behalf of these Accused persons i.e. Accused Nos. 4 to 17. Without the knowledge and active connivance of the Accused Nos. 4-17 is not possible as GST input was passed on these Accused every year by the Complainant and they were well aware of all the transactions. It is alleged all the said Accused aided and helped Accused No.3, in this financial fraud and scam in return of some monetary commission or benefit thus allowing Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain to use their GST and other details for this fraud in return of commission (1.5%) as accepted by Vaibhav Jain and all these customers in the internal investigation conducted by the Complainant.
10. It is further stated that the accused persons are also guilty of committing forgery. In the Purchase orders raised by Accused No.2 and Vaibhav Jain (on behalf of the Complainant), in the column of Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 16
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:58:05 +0530
shipping address details, name of ShivDhan (Accused No. 17) is reflected in place of the name of the customer, however in actuality Accused No.17 was never onboarded as customer in the Complainant's system. All the Suppliers Purchase Orders were last edited and forged to add the details of Accused No.17 manually added in the system of the Complainant Company by Accused Nos. 2 & 3 wherein name of the customer was replaced by Accused No.17 by Accused Nos.2 and 3. The internal audit team of the Complainant has done detailed analysis of the fraud perpetuated by the Accused persons. The management of the Complainant is in the process of identifying others in their office who have also cheated the Complainant with the assistance of the other accused persons. The father of Vaibhav Jain was equally involved in this entire act of cheating the Complainant. The entire conspiracy was done by under the instructions of the father of Vaibhav Jain that is Accused No.3.
11. It is further submitted that the Accused persons conducted several meetings in Delhi in different as they were generally supposed to be on site duty and for that they were supposed to travel at several places in Delhi. The accused persons specially, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with Vaibhav Jain at different times in past 10 months met at the Office of the Complainant in Delhi and in Gurugram. Accused No.3 along with Vaibhav Jain and Accused No.3 even met the top management of the Complainant in their office in Gurgaon on 12.08.2024 and 14.08.2024 and had several meetings at office of the Complainant in Delhi and in Gurugram as well. The accused No.2 through a whistleblower scheme of the Complainant had even admitted to the entire fraud and admitted that they have illegally shipped the material to their own owned warehouses and related allies.
Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 17 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17 PANDEY 15:58:13 +0530
12. It is further stated that the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with Vaibhav Jain, after they were caught in the act by the Complainant, even further tried to induce the representatives of the Complainant by signing one ponzy agreement just to escape the claws of law wherein they signed a settlement agreement wherein Complainant was offered 9 Bigha land situated in Bagphat, Uttar Pradesh as a bait to make the Complainant square off their losses. Later when the Complainant did its due diligence, they were shocked to know that the accused persons were trying to over value the property in order to cheat the Complainant and were further inducing the Complainant by falsely selling a land which had 8 owners and this fact was completely concealed from the representatives of the Complainant. The Complainant and their Directors have suffered Crores of Rupees and have lost profits, opportunities and have caused huge losses. The accused persons have committing Criminal Breach of Trust, cheating, Criminal Conspiracy, forgery and criminal misappropriation of money and intimidation.
13. It is further stated that the Authorized Representative of the Complainant initially approached the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) to register the complaint. However, to their shock and surprise, the EOW officials refused to register it, stating that the said complaint was arising out of a civil dispute with no criminal element, and therefore no FIR could be registered. However, the Authorized Representative made another visit to the EOW, after persistent efforts, the complaint was finally filed on 10.03.2025 at Economic Offence Wing, on the same day. The complaint was subsequently sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 11.03.2025. However, till date no action has been taken by the officials of the EOW Cell. In this background the Complainant has Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 18
RAVINDRA Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:58:20 +0530
no other equally efficacious remedy available to them. Therefore, the Complainant is hereby formally approaching this Hon'ble Court seeking redressal of their grievances as also action against the accused person in terms of the law of the land. The Complainant is filing the present complaint in order to bring on record the blatant illegalities and the offence(s) committed by the accused persons. That despite repeated requests, reminders and visits by the Complainant, no action has been taken by the Economic Offence Wing, Delhi.
14. Action taken report was called in light of the judgment of Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 170/2010, Delhi High Court. According to the ATR received, it is stated that during the course of enquiry, it came to knowledge that the investigation of the case FIR 0369/24 PS Khekra is now being done by the Crime Branch, Meerut and in order to further confirm the facts, a request letter was sent to the IO, namely Insp. Kamlesh Kumar, Crime Branch, Meerut, to confirm whether the transactions is also part of investigation of the above FIR No-0369/24 PS-Khekra, or not. It is submitted that as there is already a case registered on the subject matter of the complaint and investigation is already going on, the present complaint was transferred to the SSP/Crime Branch/Meerut vide letter No 651/R/ACP/Sec-VI/EOW dated 09.05.2025 and a copy of the same has also been sent to the complainant.
15. Arguments were heard at length and the record was perused meticulously.
16. The thrust of the case of the investigating agency is that FIR has already been registered with respect to the same transactions in Uttar Pradesh. Per contra, it is the case of the complainant that FIR Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 19
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:58:29 +0530
registered in Uttar Pradesh is a different FIR. In the considered view of this Court, the registration of FIR in UP bolsters the case of the complainant and indicate commission of cognizable offence. Strangely, the attitude of the EOW has been lackadaisical in this case since the inception. At first, the complaint was transferred to South District without even going through the contents. When the same was pointed out, the complaint is stated to have been transferred to Uttar Pradesh. Complainant submits that it has office within the jurisdiction of this Court and the offence took place within the jurisdiction of this Court. The complainant has placed reliance upon the Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors Criminal Appeal no.1313 of 2025; State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, Criminal Appeal no. 847 of 2025 to submit that FIR is warranted in the present case.
17. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the Court is of the view that the contents being investigated in Uttar Pradesh are not entirely same contents in the present case. The accused persons are different in both the complaints. It is expedient to order investigation in the present matter in exercise of the judicial power under Section 175(3) BNSS. The facts pleaded by complainant are such which necessitate intervention of State machinery in the form of police investigation and the complainant would not be in a position to collect evidence.
18. In view of the facts and circumstances, the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences for which an FIR is warranted. Present application under Section 175(3) BNSS is allowed. ACP EOW, South is directed to convert the contents of complaint as FIR and investigate the matter fairly.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 20
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:58:40 +0530
19. Copy of this order be sent to ACP EOW concerned Section for necessary intimation and compliance.
20. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
21. Compliance report be filed on 16.05.2025.
(Announced in the Open Court) (Himanshu Raman Singh) Chief Judicial Magistrate South District/Saket Courts 13.05.2025 D. In reply to both the revision petition no. 227/2025 and 244/2025, the complainant /respondent had filed the common reply for both the revision petitions and had reasserted the averments made in the complaint filed before the Ld. CJM, South Saket U/s 175(3) of BNSS 2023. The respondent no. 2/ complainant had prayed for dismissal of both the revision petitions bearing nos. 227/2025 and 244/2025.
E. The State/respondent had opted not to file any formal reply of the revision petitions and opted to address arguments straightaway.
F. The investigating agency/IO had filed separate reply/ATR and reasserted the averments made before the Court of Ld. CJM, South Saket and stated that during the course of the inquiry as conducted by the Inquiry Officer of investigating agency EOW, it came into the knowledge that investigation of FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra was being done by Crime Branch, Meerut and in order to further confirm the facts, a request letter was sent to the IO of that case namely Inspector Kamlesh Kumar, Crime Branch, Meerut to confirm as to whether the transactions related to the parties Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 21 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17 PANDEY 15:58:58 +0530 mentioned in complaint before the EOW, Delhi were also the part of the investigation of FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra. It is further averred in the reply of the EOW, Delhi that IO of the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra vide letter dated 09.05.2025 had confirmed that parties/buyers were the part of the investigation of the case FIR no. 369/2024 PS Khekra and he had also shared the some notices issued to the buyers. It is contended by the inquiry officer of EOW, Delhi that as the case was already registered on the subject matter of the complaint and investigation was going on, the complaint of the complainant filed with EOW, Delhi was transferred to the SSP/Crime Branch/Meerut vide letter no. 651/R/ACP/Sec-VI/EOW dated 09.05.2025 and copy of the same was also send to the complainant. It is further contended by the inquiry officer of EOW in its reply/ATR that the complaint of the complainant was devoid of any merit as the subject matter was already under investigation in FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, District Bagpat, U.P. G. Arguments on behalf of the revisionist Satish Jain in Criminal Revision No. 227/2025
1. It is submitted that the present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 of Ld. CJM, South Saket vide which the FIR was directed to be registered on the basis of disposal of application U/s 175(3) of BNSS, 2023.
2. It is further submitted that as per allegation five billion dollar company is being run by two junior officers and they had induced the management and syphoned the funds etc. It is further submitted that complainant's company is based on Gurgoan. It is further submitted that Vaibhav Jain is the son of the revisionist and Vaibhav Jain was the employee of the OFB Tech Pvt Ltd/complainant company. It is further submitted that Vaibhav Jain got registered a complaint at Gurgaon at PS DLF Phase-I on 11.10.2024 and FIR No. 260/2025 PS DLF Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 22
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17
15:59:06 +0530
Phase-I was registered.
3. It is further submitted that as per the allegation, the revisionist Satish Jain is also doing some business with the complainant's company as a trader. It is further submitted that as per the allegation the son of the revisionist Vaibhav Jain and revisionist Satish Jain had syphoned certain funds of company.
4. It is further submitted that complainant had also lodged a complaint in PS Khekra District Bhagpat, U.P bearing FIR no. 369/2024 dated 28.10.2024 against the accused persons. It is further submitted that, that matter is under investigation and due to the same reason, the Ld. Trial Court/Court of Ld. CJM South Saket was having no jurisdiction to entertain fresh application U/s 175(3) of BNSS, 2023.
5. It is further submitted that in the said FIR no. 369/2024 PS Khekra, the revisionist Satish Jain alongwith other 13 persons are cited as accused.
6. It is further submitted that as per the opinion of the IO in report of the Crime Branch District Meerut dated 21.05.2025 in FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra District Bhagpat, no embezzlement of fund was committed by the accused persons. It is further submitted that due to the same reason, the complainant had approached to the Delhi Police and had lodged complaint again against the same accused persons on the basis of same facts and allegations.
7. It is further submitted that as per the opinion of the IO of the above mentioned case, the complainant company itself had raised false bills in order to inflate its valuation/turnover.
8. It is further submitted that the complainant had lodged the complaint to the EOW, Delhi dated 10.03.2025.
9. It is further submitted that in that complaint to the EOW, Delhi the revisionist Satish Kumar Jain has been mentioned as an accused/suspect at serial no. 2.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 23
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:59:12 +0530
10. It is further submitted that the complainant/R-2 had mislead the Ld. Trial Court while stating that the said FIR No. 369/2024 was registered against Vaibhav Jain. However, it is clear from the record that the said FIR was registered against the revisionist also alongwith other accused persons.
11. It is further submitted that even if the allegation of the R-2/complainant be taken as correct then also the dispute between the parties is of civil nature which does not require the investigation by the police. It is further submitted that the competent police official of Crime Branch, Meerut is already investigating the allegation of the complainant in FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, Bhagpat and registration of second FIR on the same set of allegations is not required and permissible as per law.
12. Ld counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judgment titled as " TT Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors." It is submitted that the registration of second FIR and reinvestigation by the other investigating agency is not permissible in law as laid down by Superior Courts. It is further submitted that entertaining the second complaint of the complainant/R-2 and directing the registration of fresh FIR on the same fact and allegation is the misuse of process of law.
13. It is further submitted that the order as passed by Ld. CJM, South Saket is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
14. It is further submitted that the investigating agency of Delhi including EOW, the Courts of Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent complaint of the complainant/R-2 for registration of the FIR as the matter is already under investigation by the investigating agency Crime Branch, Meerut by the Competent Officer. It is further submitted that the direction of the registration of fresh FIR is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that the order of the Ld. CJM, South Saket is beyond the purview of Section 154 of the Cr.PC.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 24
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:59:19 +0530
It is further submitted that order of the Ld. CJM, South Saket is liable to be set aside.
15. Ld counsel for revisionist has also relied upon the judgment titled as " Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors." of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and submits that the law on the point of sameness of allegation is verified by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and registration of fresh FIR on the same fact is not permissible in law.
16. It is further submitted that Inquiry Officer of EOW in ATR/reply has supported the fact that the FIR on the basis of same fact has already been registered and under investigation by the Crime Branch, Meerut and complaint of the complainant filed in the EOW was also transferred to the SSP/Crime Branch Meerut vide letter no. 651/EOW dated 09.05.2025. It is further submitted that no case is made out to direct the registration of fresh FIR. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
17. It is further submitted that as per the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court para 14 and para 17, the Court had observed that the accused persons in both the complaints i.e. in complaint before the EOW, Delhi and complaint/FIR at PS Khekra, District Bhagpat U.P as investigated by Crime Branch Meerut are different which is factually incorrect as per the ATR/Inquiry Report filed by the Inquiry Officer before Ld. Trial Court.
H. Arguments on behalf of the revisionist Shakti Singh & Ors. in Criminal Revision No. 244/2025.
1. It is submitted that law on the point of registration of second FIR/complaint is settled and two FIRs cannot be registered on the basis of one complaint or one set of allegation.
2. It is further submitted that it is factually incorrect to say that only one suspect or accused was mentioned in complaint Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 25
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 15:59:54 +0530
registered at PS Khekra Bhagpat.
3. It is further submitted that the content of the FIR No. 369/2024 clearly find mention the name of the accused Vaibhav Jain, Satish Jain or M/s. Anter Sen Vinod Kumar and others which suggest that other accused were also allegedly involved and allegations were made against the other accused persons.
4. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint at Bhagpat, U.P and contents of the complaint at EOW, Delhi are same and there is no factually different allegation in both the complaints.
5. It is further submitted that as per allegation against the revisionist Shakti Singh, the revisionist Shakti Singh was vendor and as per the allegation, the purchase order were forged by the Vaibhav Jain and Rishab Chaudhary. It is further submitted that as per allegations, the accused Shakti Singh was in collusion with the accused Vaibhav Jain and Rishab Chaudhary in forging the purchase orders.
6. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the revisionist in the complaint of the complainant and Ld. CJM, South Saket had not considered the said fact and had also passed order for registration of FIR against the revisionist Shakti Singh without any basis.
7. It is further submitted that if there is any dispute with the revisionist and the complainant company, the same is of civil nature and the same does not require registration of FIR. It is further submitted that the impugned order against the revisionist is bad in law and is not based on the actual facts of the case. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the revisionist has already Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 26
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17
16:00:04 +0530
joined the investigation with the IO of the case registered at PS Khekra Bhagpat. It is further submitted that no separate FIR is required to be registered.
I. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent no.
2/complainant.
1. It is submitted that in the complaint before the EOW, Delhi, dated 10.03.2025 total 16 persons were cited as suspects/accused and some of the accused persons are residents of Delhi and some are the residents of outside Delhi.
2. It is further submitted that the criminal complaint filed in the U.P bearing FIR No. 369/2024 was not named against 16 different accused persons but it was only against the accused Vaibhav Jain.
3. It is further submitted that it is the matter of investigation after the registration of FIR as to whether accused Satish Jain or other accused persons were having any role in the commission of offence in which the complainant company had incurred a loss of approximately 100 Crore rupees.
4. It is further submitted that the complaint of the complainant as filed with EOW, Delhi dated 10.03.2025 is different from the complaint as filed by the complainant in FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra. It is further submitted that this argument is sufficient to discard the submission as made on behalf of the revisionist.
5. It is further submitted that the ATR was required to be called prior to the direction for registration of FIR. However, the Court was not bound to consider the averment made in the ATR.
6. It is further submitted that at the time of directing for registration of the FIR, the truthfulness, veracity of the complaint is not required to be inquired in cases where the allegation are of commission of offence of cognizable nature.
7. Ld counsel for respondent no. 2/complainant has relied upon the judgment titled as " Superintendent of Police CBI & Ors. Vs. Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 27
RAVINDRA Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:00:12 +0530
Tapan Kumar & Ors."
8. It is further submitted that the impugned order is detailed and well written order and it is not having infirmity or perversity. It does not require any interference by this Court.
9. It is further submitted that para no. 17 of impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court had rightly observed that the two complaints were different and set of the accused persons were also different and had rightly directed for registration of the FIR.
10. Ld counsel for respondent no. 2/complainant has relied upon the judgment titled as " Shiv Shanker Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.", it is well settled that there is no prohibition in the registration of co FIR emanating from the same incident. It is further argued that it was also held that the second complaint of the complainant is maintainable in cases where complaint against several other persons and entities and more detail of facts and incriminating material had been given with the complaint to the police authorities and subsequently placed on record with the complaint and application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC.
11. It is further submitted that the law laid down in case titled as Shiv Shanker Singh still hold till date.
12. It is further submitted that the power of the revisional Court is limited to the extent on the error apparent on the face of the record and new facts and documents cannot be entertained.
13. It is further submitted that the Court in Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in Delhi as the respondent is resident of the Delhi, some of the accused are resident of the Delhi and part of the offence was also committed in Delhi. The registration of FIR at District Bhagpat does not bar the registration of FIR of the present case in view of the law laid down as discussed above.
14. It is submitted that the veracity of the allegation can only be decided after the registration of FIR and counter narrative of the fact Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 28
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:00:19 +0530
of the revisionist cannot be entertained as a ground to set aside the order.
15. It is further submitted that the prayer of the revisionist find mention that revisionist may be given a chance to prove his innocence and foul play of the complainant/R-2 which can only be done either in the trial or during the investigation. It is further submitted that revision petition of the revisionist is liable to be dismissed as it does not hold any merit.
J. Arguments on behalf of the State/R-1
1. It is submitted on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of Ld. CJM, South Saket for directing the registration of FIR and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and it does not require any interference.
2. It is further submitted that in the complaint of the complainant/R-2, it has been specifically mentioned that part of the offence was committed in Delhi and within the jurisdiction of Court in Delhi.
3. It is further submitted that there is no bar in the registration of the FIR during the pendency of investigation with respect to the registration of another FIR and concept of double jeopardy does not bar investigation of the complaint at two places or by two different agencies.
4. It is further submitted that only after conclusion of investigation and on final report, the concept of double jeopardy can be invoked.
5. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that the revisionist has not even filed the certified copy of the impugned order as well as other documents even during the pendency of the present revision petition which he was supposed to file.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 29
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:00:28 +0530
K. The rebuttal arguments on behalf of the revisionist in
C.R No. 227/2025 Satish Jain Vs. State & Ors.
It is additionally submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the State has vaguely opposed the revision petition without any basis by overlooking the ATR filed by its own investigating agency/EOW. It is further submitted that the revision petition is liable to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be set aside.
L. The rebuttal arguments on behalf of the revisionist in C.R No. 244/2025 Shakti Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi.
1. It is submitted that in column no. 7 of the FIR of Bhagpat only the name of Vaibhav Jain as accused has been mentioned.
2. It is further submitted that the present revisionist Shakti Singh has neither been mentioned as an accused in FIR at Bhagpat nor his name was mentioned in complaint or FIR. M. Heard the submission. Perused the record of the Ld. Trial Court. The Court also considered the case law as referred by Ld counsel for both the sides during their respective arguments.
N. The revisionist in C.R No. 227/2025 titled as Satish Jain Vs. State & Ors and the revisionists in C.R No. 244/2025 titled as Shakti Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors have challenged the legality of impugned order dated 13.05.2025 of the Court of Ld. CJM, South, Saket vide which the application of the complainant /respondent no. 2 OFB Tech Pvt Ltd was allowed and FIR was ordered to be registered to carry out the investigation on the averment made in the complaint of the complainant as lodged with the police station EOW, Delhi.
O. The revisionists in both the revision petitions have mainly challenged the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 13.05.2025 Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 30
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:00:35 +0530
mainly on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Court in Delhi as well as the police station EOW, Delhi. The revisionists have also challenged the legality of the said impugned order on the ground that dispute between the parties are of civil nature. The revisionists have also challenged the said impugned order on the ground that one complaint was already lodged by the complainant with the police authorities of PS Khekra District Baghpat, U.P which was converted into FIR No. 369/2024 dated 28.10.2024 against the accused persons/suspects and investigation in that case was going on and no second FIR can be lodged on the basis of the same complaint. The revisionists have also challenged the legality of the order on the ground that Ld. Trial Court had ignored the averment of the inquiry officer which was filed in the form of ATR before the Ld. Trial Court prior to the disposal of the application U/s 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 vide which the Inquiry Officer had informed to the Ld. Trial Court that as per his inquiry, the complainant had already lodged the complaint to the police at PS Khekra District Baghpat, U.P and the same was converted into the FIR bearing no. 369/2024 PS Khekra and due to the same reason, the inquiry officer PS EOW had transferred the complaint of the complainant to the SSP Crime Branch Meerut vide letter no. 651/R/ACP/Sec-VI/EOW dated 09.05.2025.
P. In support of the averment and submission, Ld counsel for the revisionists have relied upon the judgment titled as " Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.", (2010) 12 SCC, 254, T.T Antony Vs. State of Kerala ( 2001) 6 SCC 181, "Amit Bhai Anil Chand Shah Vs. CBI" (2013) 6 SCC 348 , "Arnav Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India", "Ranbir Gautam Allahabhadia Vs. Union of India", (2025) SCC Online SC, 698.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 31
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:00:49 +0530
Q. On the other hand, the respondent no. 2/complainant
and State/respondent no. 1 had contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 13.05.2025 as the allegation mentioned in the complaint of the complainant discloses the commission of cognizable offence for which the FIR was required to be registered for carrying out the investigation. It is further contention on behalf of the respondent no. 2/complainant and State/Respondent no. 1 that revisionists have introduced the new fact by way of the present revision petitions which is not permissible as per law regarding the appreciation of the investigation as going on in FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra District Baghpat, U.P. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent no. 2/complainant and State that inquiry officer had not conducted proper inquiry and filed the improper report of ATR without appreciating the contents of the complaint of the complainant which is a separate set of allegation. It is further contended that revision petitions of the revisionists in the C.R No. 227/2025 and C.R No. 244/2025 does not hold any merit and are liable to be dismissed.
R. The Ld counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Shiv Shanker Singh Vs. State of Bihar" (2012) 1 SCC 130, State of Rajasthan Vs. Surender Singh" (2025) SCC Online 358, "Ritika Raj & Ors. Vs. State & Ors." (2022) SCC Online Delhi 6073, "Abhey Kumar Mishra Vs. State & Ors." (2013) SCC Online Delhi 4921, " Arvind Gaur Vs. State of NCT Delhi" CRL M.C 623/2023, Arun Saxena Vs. Today Homes Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (2018) SCC Online, Delhi 10752.
S. On perusal of the record of Ld. Trial Court, it reveals that upon the receipt of the complaint U/s 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 32
RAVINDRA Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:00:57 +0530
Ld. Trial Court had called upon the Action Taken Report in view of the guideline of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "
Sukhkaran Luharuka & Anrs. Vs. State, GNCT Delhi" and the inquiry officer from PS EOW had filed the Action Taken Report while informing about the registration of the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, U.P being investigated by the Crime Branch, Meerut. It was also informed that the complaint of the complainant was transferred to SSP/Crime Branch, Meerut vide letter no. 651/R/ACP/Sec-VI/EOW dated 09.05.2025 and complainant was also informed through letter in that regard.
1. The perusal of the order of Ld. Trial Court reveals that Ld. Trial Court had duly considered the averment as made by the complainant in his complaint U/s 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 and also considered the information given by the investigating agency in the form of Action Taken Report and thereafter, had opined that the contents of the FIR bearing no. 369/2024 PS Khekra District Baghpat, U.P being investigated by the Crime Branch, Meerut are not entirely the same as the contents of the complaint of the complainant filed before the EOW, Delhi. The Ld. Trial Court had also opined that accused persons in both the complaints were different and thereafter, after considering the entire material filed alongwith the application U/s 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 had allowed the application/complaint U/s 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 and had ordered for registration of the FIR to carry out the investigation by the investigating agency EOW, Delhi. On the perusal of the Action Taken Report as filed by the Inquiry Officer EOW, Delhi, it reveals that on receipt of the complaint of the complainant with EOW, Delhi, the Inquiry Officer had himself had not conducted any independent inquiry regarding the fact mentioned in the complaint filed before the EOW while inquiring Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 33
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2025.10.17
16:01:07 +0530
from the complainant and while appreciating the document attached with the complaint filed before the EOW, Delhi and had only send a letter to the investigating officer of Crime Branch, Meerut of FIR no. 369/2024 PS Khekra, Baghpat, U.P who confirmed to the Inquiry Officer of EOW, Delhi vide letter dated 09.05.2025 while stating that parties/buyers are the part of the investigation in the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, Baghpat, U.P and in view of the said letter, the EOW, Delhi had transferred the complaint of the complainant for further investigation with the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, U.P through letter dated 09.05.2025 addressed to the SSP Crime Branch, Meerut. The approach of the investigating agency EOW was incorrect to the effect that inquiry officer of the EOW was supposed to conduct independent inquiry on the basis of the contents of the complaint as filed before the EOW, Delhi and by collecting the copy of the complaint and other record from the investigating officer of FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra District Baghpat, U.P and instead of conducting independent inquiry on the complaint of the complainant, the inquiry officer had opted to write a letter to the investigating officer of the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra District Baghpat, U.P. It is not clear from the Action Taken Report as filed by the inquiry officer that whether the inquiry officer himself had compared both the complaints as filed before the EOW, Delhi and the record of the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, District Baghpat, U.P and thereafter, he formed the opinion about the sameness of the allegation in both the complaints.
2. The contents of the complaint as filed by the complainant U/s 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence within the jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court which require the registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality or Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 34
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.10.17
PANDEY 16:01:14 +0530
infirmity in the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 13.05.2025 while disposing the application U/s 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 and issuing direction for registration of FIR on the complaint of the complainant.
3. The investigating agency/EOW is at liberty to transfer the investigation after registration of the FIR and after conducting the preliminary inquiry/investigation in case the complaint as filed before the EOW, Delhi is same as the complaint converted into the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, District Baghpat, U.P to the concerned Police Station Khekra, District Baghpat, U.P or investigating agency which is investigating the FIR No. 369/2024 PS Khekra, District Baghpat, U.P as per law and at appropriate stage for clubbing the investigation of both the matters as per rules.
4. The revision petitions bearing no. 227/2025 titled as Satish Kumar Jain Vs. State & revision petition no. 244/2025 titled as Shakti Singh & Ors. Vs. State does not hold any merit and are accordingly dismissed.
5. The interim order stands vacated. The misc. application if any are also stands disposed off accordingly.
6. The Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of this order to the Ld. Trial Court.
7. Copy of the order be given dasti.
8. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Announced in the open Court, PANDEY Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:33 +0530 On 17th October, 2025 (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts/New Delhi.
17.10.2025 Satish Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Shakti Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. page no. 35