Delhi District Court
Manoj Sharma vs Merittrac Services Pvt. Ltd on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GARG
SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/ASJ (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 277/2025
CNR No. DLST01-008314-2025
MANOJ SHARMA
Proprietor of M/s Multi Graphics,
A-86, DDA Sheds,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi .....Revisionist
Vs.
1. MERITTRAC SERVICES PVT. LTD.
No. 1/1, Swami Vivekanand Road,
Off-MG Road, Near Trinity Circle,
Halasuru, Bangalore,
Karnataka - 560008.
2. Mr. AMRISH SINHA
Director, Merittrac Services Pvt. Ltd.,
3. SUJATHA KUMARASWAMY,
Chief Executive Officer,
Merittrac Services Pvt. Ltd.
4. Mr. SRINU LANKA
Finance Director,
Merittrac Services Pvt. Ltd.
5. Ms. SHAILAJA SANGAVI,
Assistant Director Procurement,
Merittrac Services Pvt. Ltd.
6. Other unknown persons.
Address of Respondent No. 2 to 5:
No. 1/1, Swami Vivekanand Road,
Off-MG Road, Near Trinity Circle,
Halasuru, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560008.
.....Respondents
Page 1 of 9
Date of assignment : 09.06.2025
Arguments heard on : 24.03.2026
Date of Order : 24.03.2026
ORDER
1.0 The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist Manoj Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the 'revisionist' herein) aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') passed by the Ld. ACJM (South) whereby the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC of the revisionist was dismissed.
2.0 Brief facts are that the revisionist is the proprietor of M/s Multi Graphics, which is engaged in the business of printing high quality mark sheets, degree certificates, question papers, etc. The revisionist was approached by the respondent No.1 / company through its Directors and representatives, for the purpose of printing 1,50,000 mark sheets, and 50,000 degree certificates. It was alleged that one Rajesh Komarla, from an organization namely 'U Next', had been communicating with the revisionist and the respondent, while the contact between him and the proposed accused company subsisted. It was further alleged that revisionist duly discharged his obligation under the contract entered into between him and the respondent company, but the respondent failed to obtain delivery of 1,07,000 mark sheets from him. Further, it was alleged in the complaint that the respondent could not have subcontracted the printing job to the revisionist and that the respondent had indulged in certain illegal conduct qua the contract of printing, because of which a CBI enquiry was initiated against them. It is the case of the revisionist Page 2 of 9 / complainant that due to his agreement with the respondent, he was also made part of the investigation conducted by the CBI. The revisionist filed a civil suit in July 2023, seeking recovery of Rs.68,84,929/- against the respondent which is pending in the Court of Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court, South-East, Saket in which the respondent filed its pleadings, two sets of NDAs, purportedly executed by him. The said NDAs are alleged to be forged and fabricated documents. It was further alleged that the stamp on both of these NDAs are different from each other, which reflects an attempt on the part of the respondent to change the nature and scope of the document, without the prior consent of the revisionist with a view to cause wrongful loss to the revisionist, and wrongful gain to respondent. It is alleged in the complaint that vide email dated 19.02.2022, the revisionist had sent a copy of duly signed draft NDA to the respondent, but had also pointed out certain flaws in the agreement which had to be corrected by the respondent but the respondent unuthorisedly used the draft NDAs. It is the case of complainant that records of email communications between him and respondent would reveal that as on 03.03.2022, the draft NDA was yet to be finalized, which fact itself shows that the NDA dated 19.02.2022 could not have been used by respondent. It is the case of the revisionist that the respondents have forged the said documents accordingly, but despite due compliance with Section 154(1) CrPC and Section 154(3) CrPC, no FIR on his complaint was registered. Hence, he filed a complaint u/S 156 (3) Cr.PC before the ACJM (South). 2.1 The Ld. ACJM (South) after going through the documents on record including the ATR filed by the Enquiry Officer and considering the arguments as advanced by both the sides dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and fixed the Page 3 of 9 matter for consideration on the point of cognizance u/s 190(1)(a) Cr.PC.
3.0 Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the NDAs given by the revisionist were draft NDAs and was never intended to be acted upon. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist reiterated his allegations as mentioned in the complaint filed by him before the Ld. ACJM (South). Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court suffers from illegality, impropriety and incorrectness. Further, it was submitted that there cannot be any date of finalization of NDAs, as the same were never finalized. It is further argued that the NDAs are required to be sent to FSL to examine the forgery so committed on the NDAs. In support, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgments passed in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC, M/s Bhandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Prasad Vasudev Keni etc., Crl. Appeal Nos. 546-550 of 2017 decided on 02.09.2020, Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 68/2008 decidedon 12.11.2013, Devarapalli Lakshminarayan Reddy & Ors Vs. Narayana Reddy & Ors. , (1976) 3 SCC 252 and M/s Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 2574/24.
3.1 Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed a reasoned order while dismissing the application of the revisionist u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. The contents of both sets of NDAs are identical and the signatures on the same are not disputed. Further, even if for the sake of presumption, it is presumed that revisionist shared the signed draft NDAs for further deliberation and respondent unilaterally put their two different stamps on the two printouts of Page 4 of 9 the NDA, still no offence is made out as neither the signatures of the revisionist nor the contents of NDA are in dispute. Merely, putting one's own signature with two different stamps will not render the documents as forged. It was further argued that during investigation in CBI case No. RC0042022A0008/2022, it was revealed that the Multigraphics had unlawfully subcontracted its obligations to KVR Infosys Pvt. Ltd., without obtaining the consent of respondent No.1. It was further argued that the revisionist in his statement record u/s 161 Cr.PC by the CBI, Jammu admitted that the NDA was duly filled and signed by the revisionist and thereafter, submitted online. In support, Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decisions passed in Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, 1962 SCC Online SC 172, Sanjay Sinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 123, Sunil Vs. State, 2023 SCC Online Del 4658, Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751, FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. State & Ors., Crl. MC No. 4123/2019 decided on 04.04.2025 and Indian Institute of Planning & Management Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , Crl. MC No. 1144/23 decided on 31.07.2024 3.0 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record carefully.
4.0 The only bone of contention in the instant case is the NDA agreement which the revisionist alleges forged by the respondent herein and thereafter, used in the civil proceedings. However, admittedly, the contents of the NDA and the signatures of the revisionist are not in dispute. Only the stamps of the respondent and their signatures are disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist on the ground that since the NDA shared with the respondent was draft NDA and never intended to be acted Page 5 of 9 upon which the respondent unilaterally acted upon without knowledge or consent of the revisionist herein and thus, amounts to forgery and using of forged documents. However, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, failed to explain how merely putting their own stamp and signature on the document amounts to forgery specially when no wrongful loss or wrongful gain is caused by the respondent on the basis of the said NDA alone. Further, the Ld. Trial Court has already dealt with all the contentions of the revisionist herein, and rightly observed that even if, for the sake of presumption, it is presumed that the draft NDA was put to use by the respondent unilaterally, still no offence of forgery is made out. Further, Ld. Trial Court has already held that no scientific or technical investigation is required and the evidence is well within the reach of the complainant / revisionist herein. The Ld. ACJM also rightly observed that if the assistance of police would be required at any stage, same can be procured by resorting to the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
5.0 In Arvindbhai Rajivbhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai 1998 (1) Crimes 351, the Hon'ble Gujarat High court took strong exception to the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases u/s 156 (3) of the Code and advised the Magistrate not to pass orders mechanically. It was held that the Magistrate should act u/s 156 (3) of the Code only in those cases where the assistance of the police is essentially required and the Magistrate is of the considered view that the complainant on his own may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence in support of the accusations. 6.0 In M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State, 92 (2001)DLT 217, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court interalia held as Page 6 of 9 under:
" Section 156 empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate investigation but this power has to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant himself is not in possession of evidence to prove his allegations, there should be no need to pass orders u/s 156. But cases where Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the court, and interests of justice demand that the police should step into to help the complainant, police assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of cheque and forging of typing out certain portions therein, could be proved by oral evidence and by summoning original cheque from banker and leading required evidence respectively, then there was no such evidence which complainant could be unable to collect on his own. As such declining request to issue directions to police u/s 156(3) would be justified."
7.0 Once an application u/s 156(3) is moved before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must apply his mind while exercising his powers for directing the investigation. These powers must not be used to pass orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of the complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.
8.0 Coming to the facts of the present case, Ld. ACJM after applying his mind decided not to send the case for investigation to police and opted to take cognizance on the complaint and has proceeded to list the matter for recording testimony of the complainant and his witnesses in pre- summoning evidence. Once the Magistrate has opted to exercise his discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this Court while exercising the powers of revisional jurisdiction need Page 7 of 9 not substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Tarun Mohan Vs. State and Another (2021) SCC online ( DEL ) 312, wherein it was observed as under:
"The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr. P.C gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
9.0 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Duttatray Gulabrao Phalke & Ors., 2015 (3) SCC 123 observed as under:
"14. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order merely because another view is possible. The revisional Court is not meant to act as an apellate court. The whole purpose of revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power of the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court u/S 397 to 401 Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal."
10.0 The Ld. ACJM has considered all the relevant factors and has come to a reasoned finding. Thus, in view of the detailed order passed by the Ld. Trial Court, I do not find any infirmity and irregularity in the same. The same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Page 8 of 911.0 Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
12.0 Revision file be consigned to Record-Room.
Announced in Open Court on (Ajay Garg)
24.03.2026 Special Judge (NDPS)/ASJ (south)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by AJAY
AJAY GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.03.24
16:40:29
+0530
Page 9 of 9