Irshad vs State And Ors on 14 May, 2026
revisionist inter alia further proclaimed that respondent no. 2,
received a total sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One
Lakhs only), i.e., a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen
Lakhs only) as earnest money and as sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), as part payment, from the
revisionist. However, as per the revisionist, despite assurances of
respondent nos. 2-3 that their property/share in property would be
transferred to the revisionist and the relevant documents be
executed in his/revisionist's favour, respondent nos. 2-3
persevered to delay execution of such documents/transfer of their
shares in property, on one or the other pretext. It was further
avowed by the revisionist under his complaint/application that on
19.09.2023, at around 06:00 p.m., he along with his close relative
also visited the premise of respondent nos. 2-3, entreating
execution of documents/sale deed in respect of the property,
however, to no avail. On the contrary, as per the revisionist,
respondent nos. 2-3 started abusing and threatening the
revisionist of dire consequences, including sale of the property to
a third person(s). It is further the case of the revisionist that
CR. No. 33/2026 Mr. Irshad v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2026.05.14
16:00:43
+0530
considering utter non-compliance of their obligations, the
revisionist issued/got issued legal notice dated 21.09.2023 to
respondent no. 2 through his legal counsel. However, despite the
same, as per the revisionist, respondent nos. 2-3 neither replied to
the said notice nor execute the documents of sale of the
property/their shares in property, as per the agreed terms.
2.3. Ergo, under aforenoted facts and circumstances, the
revisionist is asserted to have approached the concerned police
officials against the alleged acts of respondent nos. 2-3 in not
executing the sale deed in favour of the revisionist, committing
criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation.
However, as per the revisionist, no FIR was registered on
his/revisionist's complaint. Congruently, the revisionist is also
asserted to have issued repeated reminders to the police officials,
however, to no avail. It is further asserted on behalf of the
revisionist that considering the utter inaction on the part of the
concerned police officials, despite the demonstration of
commission of several cognizable offences, the revisionist moved
the Ld. Trial Court by means of the aforenoted complaint under
Section 223BNSS/Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with an
application/entreaty for registration of FIR, in terms of the
provisions under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Relevantly, the Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court vide order dated
24.01.2025, directed the concerned police official/SHO to file of
action taken report/ATR/status report on the complaint filed
by/on behalf of the revisionist inter alia under the following
observations;