Dhiraj Makhija vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 November, 2025
3. Reply to this petition was not filed by the respondents but
written arguments were filed on behalf of respondent no.2. The
respondent no.2 argued that the impugned order is absolutely correct in
terms of facts, law and procedure. Respondent no.2 claimed that the
crimes committed by the revisionist and his associates are evident from
the contradictory, illogical, false story of loan availed and the video
footage etc. It is alleged by respondent no.2 that the promissiory note
was forged on a blank signed paper and the signatures on the promissory
note are forged. Numerous extracts have been cited from different
ANURAG Digitally signed by
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR 22:18:01 +05'30'
Date: 2025.11.13
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2025 Dhiraj Makhija vs State & Anr. 2 of 11
documents to adumbrate that forgery had been committed. It is prayed
by respondent no.2 that revision petition be dismissed being unmerited.