Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 136 of 2025
CNR No.DLCT01-
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Smt. Sneh Lata Jain
W/o Late Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain.
2. Sh. Lovesh Jain
S/o Late Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain
3. Sh. Puneet Jain
S/o Late Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain
All residents of:
3/8, Atur Rehman Lane,
Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
..…..Revisionists
Versus
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Kamal Chand Jain,
2. Sh. Naman Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain,
Both resident of
A-22, CC Colony,
Opp. Rana Pratap Bagh,
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 1 of 13
-- 1 of 13 --
Delhi-110007
Also at:
A-19, CC Colony,
Opp. Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007
…..Respondents
Instituted on : 25.03.2025
Reserved on : Not reserved
Pronounced on : 22.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant revision, revisionists take exception to order dated
23.12.2024, whereby his application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C
in case titled as ‘
Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain &
Anr’ bearing CC No. 2658/2020 decided by Ld. JMFC-07,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
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:-
“1. In brief In this complaint it is alleged by complainant that alleged
that the property bearing no. 3/8, Azur Rehman Lane, Under Hills
Road, Civil Lines, Delhi was purchased by virtue of registered sale
deed dated 19/04/2006 in the name of M/s Under Hills Properties
Pvt Ltd which was later on taken over by Late Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain
and Smt. Sneh Lata Jain who became directors in the said company.
It is further alleged that the company M/s Under Hills Properties Pvt
Ltd was renamed as Munna Lal Ramdhari Agro Pvt Ltd on 18/05/15.
It is further alleged that Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain expired on mant
Snch Lata Jain and alleged Kailash Chand Jain is uncle of he nant
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 2 of 13
-- 2 of 13 --
Such Lata Jain. It is further alleged that alleged accused persons
ferred and fabricated the signature of complainant Snch Late Jain,
her ased mother-in-law Smt. Kusum Lata Jain and Late Sh. Tarun
Kumar lain one document dated 20/12/17 wherein it is mentioned
that 35000 shares of esh Lata Jain and 40000 shares of Late Smt.
Kusum Kumari Jain have been transferred to alleged Sh. Sunil
Kumar Jain and Naman Kumar Jain. It is Hether alleged that the said
document is forged and fabricated and the signatures appearing on
the said documents are also forged and fabricated which was never
singed and executed either by the complainant and ber mother-in-
law Late Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain and her husband Late Sh. Tarun
Kumar Jain. It is further alleged that the said documents came in the
knowledge of complainants, when civil suit bearing no. 932/19 titled
Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain versus Smt. Sneh Lata Jain and others was
filed and the complainants were served the forged and fabricated
documents. It is further alleged that the said civil suit is pending
adjudication before Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is further
alleged that the payment of Rs. 01 Crore as mentioned in the above
document dated 20/12/17 was not given on account of sale of the
shares whereas the amount of Rs. 50 Lac was paid to complainant
Smt. Sneh Latu Jain as voluntary gift offered by the parents of
complainant Smt. Sneh Lata Jain being daughter and amount of Rs.
50 Lac was paid to Late Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain being an
investment in her business being run under the name and style of
M/s Munna Lal and Sons of which Late Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain
was proprietor. The complainant is praying for registration of FIR
against the allege accused persons in the present matter. 18/01/2018
and Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain expired on 25/07/19. It is further alleged
that complainant is daughter-in-law of Late Smt. Kusum Kumari
Jain and wife of Late Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain. It is further alleged that
complainant no. 2 & 3 are grandson of Late Sh. Kusum Kumari Jain
and sons of Late Sh. Tarun Kumar Jain. It is further alleged that Sh.
Sunil Kumar Jain is real brother of complainant Sneh Lata Jain and
alleged Naman Kumar Jain is nephew of the complainant Snch Lata
Jain and alleged Kailash Chand Jain is uncle of he nant Such Lata
Jain. It is further alleged that alleged accused persons ferred and
fabricated the signature of complainant Snch Late Jain, her ased
mother-in-law Smt. Kusum Lata Jain and Late Sh. Tarun Kumar lain
one document dated 20/12/17 wherein it is mentioned that 35000
shares of esh Lata Jain and 40000 shares of Late Smt. Kusum
Kumari Jain have been transferred to alleged Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain
and Naman Kumar Jain. It is Hether alleged that the said document
is forged and fabricated and the signatures appearing on the said
documents are also forged and fabricated which was never singed
and executed either by the complainant and ber mother-in-law Late
Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain and her husband Late Sh. Tarun Kumar
Jain. It is further alleged that the said documents came in the
knowledge of complainants, when civil suit bearing no. 932/19 titled
Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain versus Smt. Sneh Lata Jain and others was
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 3 of 13
-- 3 of 13 --
filed and the complainants were served the forged and fabricated
documents. It is further alleged that the said civil suit is pending
adjudication before Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is further
alleged that the payment of Rs. 01 Crore as mentioned in the above
document dated 20/12/17 was not given on account of sale of the
shares whereas the amount of Rs. 50 Lac was paid to complainant
Smt. Sneh Latu Jain as voluntary gift offered by the parents of
complainant Smt. Sneh Lata Jain being daughter and amount of Rs.
50 Lac was paid to Late Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain being an
investment in her business being run under the name and style of
M/s Munna Lal and Sons of which Late Smt. Kusum Kumari Jain
was proprietor. The complainant is praying for registration of FIR
against the allege accused persons in the present matter.”
3. Status report was filed by concerned Inquiry Officer, PS Subzi
Mandi before concerned Court.
4. Vide impugned order, the said application stood dismissed by
concerned court. The relevant observations of Ld MM is follow :-
“5. In this complaint it is alleged by the complainant that
alleged accused persons have forged the signatures of the
complainant Sneh Lata Jain on one document allegedly
executed on 20.12.2017, wherein it is mentioned that 35,000/-
share of the complainant and 40,000/- share of late Smt.
Kusum Lata Jain have been transferred to the alleged accused
persons Sunil Kumar Jain and Naman Jain. It is alleged by the
complainant that they came to know about the said forged
document when the alleged filed one civil suit bearing no.
932/2019 titled as Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sneh Lati Jain and Ors.
Admittedly, both the parties are relatives, tine civil suit is
sending between them wherein some document was field by
the alleged accused persons wherein some shares were claimed
to be transferred to the alleged accused persons. Priam facie,
the complainant is in possession of the complete details of the
accused person as well as the witnesses who are to be
examined and neither recovery is needed nor any such material
evidence is required to be collected which can be done only by
the police. As far as forged document is concerned the
complainant can examine an expert witness to know the
genuineness of the said document witness to prove the
allegations. The true test to use discretionary power to order
investigation by police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 4 of 13
-- 4 of 13 --
whether any cognizable offence is committed or not, but
whether an investigation by police agency is required or not. In
the present case, no technical or complex investigation is
required by the police. Later, in case the court find it necessary
that investigation by police is required it can resort to Section
202 Cr.P.C for that purpose.
Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is
dismissed and the complainant is given an opportunity to prove
the allegations by leading evidence.
Put up for pre summoning evidence on 08.04.2025.”
5. Arguments heard.
6. Ld. counsel for revisionist has argued on the similar lines as taken
in the instant revision petition. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has
forcefully argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law as Ld MM was duty bound to order for registration of
FIR as the facts averred in the complaint disclose commission of
cognizable offences. It is urged that all the evidence is not within
the possession of revisionist and assistance of police would be
required for recovery of the document and for ascertaining the
authorship of forged documents. It is argued that the impugned
order against the law laid down by the Apex court in the
judgment of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP &ors.(writ petition
criminal no. 68/2008). It is submitted that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside and the application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed by passing appropriate directions
for registration of the FIR in the instant case.
7. Per contra, Ld Counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 5 of 13
-- 5 of 13 --
that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the
impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature. It is further
submitted that no offence much less any cognizable offence is
made out in the instant matter. It is argued that Ld MM has rightly
dismissed the application of the revisionist keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the
present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, same is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Considered.
9. Before deciding the present revision petition, it would be relevant
to reproduce the relevant provisions of law which are as under :
“Section 438 of BNSS- Calling for records to exercise
powers of revision
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and
examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior
Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling,
for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or
order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that
he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the
examination of the record.
Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial,
and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall
be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the
purposes of this sub-section and of section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall
not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed
in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any
person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no
further application by the same person shall be entertained by
the other of them.”
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 6 of 13
-- 6 of 13 --
10.Before testing the case of the revisionist on merits, the issue of the
maintainability of the instant revision ought to be resolved first.
11. Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the decision reported as
AIR 2014 All 214 Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P. dealing with
the issue of maintainability of a revision petition against the order
rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. held:-
“58. xxx In view of the discussion above and for the reasons
which we have furnished, we have come to the following
conclusion:
(i) Before the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas, the
controversy was whether a direction to the Police to register a
First Information Report in regard to a case involving a
cognizable offence and for investigation is open to Revision at
the instance of a person suspected of having committed a
crime against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor
any process issued. Such an Order was held to be interlocutory
in nature and, therefore, to attract the bar under sub-section (2)
of Section 397. The decision in Father Thomas does not
decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application
under Section 156(3), would be amenable to a Revision under
Section 397, by the Complainant or the informant, whose
Application has been rejected;
(ii) An Order of the Magistrate rejecting an Application under
Section 156(3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the
Police and for investigation is not an Interlocutory Order.
Such an Order is amenable to the remedy of a Criminal
Revision under Section 397; and (iii) In proceedings in
Revision under Section 397, the prospective Accused or, as the
case may be, the person, who is suspected of having
committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being
heard before a decision is taken in the Criminal Revision.”
12. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth
Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017 observed at para 13 :-
“
3. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 7 of 13
-- 7 of 13 --
an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien,
while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The
said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint
and on taking cognizance proceeds as a complaint case. In case
directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on
registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are
made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so
far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him
without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly
affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom
and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has
no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since
directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie
would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme
Court. Therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a
revision petition against the same is maintainable.”
13.Thus, in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is held that the
instant revision petition is maintainable. Having resolved the issue
of maintainability in favor of the revisionist, now I proceed to test
the case of the revisionist on its merits.
14. In the present case, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has submitted
that the indulgence of the police is required for carrying out the
investigation, in particular the recovery of forged and fabricated
agreement dated 30.12.2017 and for ascertaining the author
thereof.
15. As per the revisionists, they came into the knowledge about the
document in question i.e. the agreement dated 20.12.2017, which
is alleged to be forged and fabricated only when received the
summons of Civil Suit bearing no. 932/2019 was filed by the
respondents. It is stated that only photocopy of the said agreement
was filed in the aforesaid Civil Suit. However, respondents have
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 8 of 13
-- 8 of 13 --
denied having the original of the said agreement dated 30.12.2017
in their possession.
16. It is not in dispute that the parties are already contesting Civil
Suit in which the agreement in question forms part of the record.
The genuineness, admissibility and evidentiary value of the said
documents are matters which can be duly examined and
adjudicated by the Ld. Civil Court in accordance with law. When
it has been categorically denied by the respondents that they are
not in possession of the original documents, the very basis of
seeking police recovery becomes doubtful. Revisionist has not
placed any material on record to prima facie establish that the
original documents is in possession of respondents or that the
same is being deliberately withheld or concealed so as to
necessitate coercive recovery through police machinery.
17. As such, after going through the records and hearing the
arguments, I am of the view that Ld Magistrate has rightly
observed that all the details of alleged offence are within the
knowledge of revisionist as well as he is well aware of the
identities of respondents/accused persons and he is in possession
of relevant evidence and no investigation by police is required for
collection of any evidence and if need arises, Ld. Magistrate can
take resort to provisions of section 202 Cr.PC.
18.Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as Arvindbhai
Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Dhirubhai Sambhubhai reported in 1998 (1)
Crimes 351, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court took strong exception to
the growing tendency of asking the police to investigate cases
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 9 of 13
-- 9 of 13 --
under Section 156(3) of the Code and advised the Magistrates not
to pass orders mechanically. It was held that:-
“
Magistrates should act under Section 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
accusation”.
19. Further, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Skipper
Beverages P. Ltd Vs. State 2002 CRI. L. J. NOC 333(Delhi)
that :-
''Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register
case and initiate investigation but this power had to be
exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner. Those
cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant
himself in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there
should be no need to pass order U/s156. But cases, where
Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that
complainant himself may not be in position to collect and
produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand
that police should step into to help complainant, police
assistance can be taken. Thus, where allegations of theft of
cheque and forging of typing out certain portion 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
direction to police under Section 156(3) would be justified.''
20. In my considered view, once an application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. is moved before a Magistrate, he has two options. He can
either send the case for investigation to concerned Police Station
in the facts and circumstances of a particular case or instead of
doing so, he may opt for taking cognizance on the complaint of
the complainant, may proceed to record the testimony of the
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 10 of 13
-- 10 of 13 --
complainant and his witnesses in pre-summoning evidence and
thereafter, may decide whether a case for summoning of accused
is made out or not. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise his
discretion of not sending the matter for investigation, this court,
while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, cannot
substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate.
Reliance is placed upon judgment of
Taron Mohan v. State & Anr,
2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has
observed as under:-
“9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is
extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397
CrPC 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 a 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.”
21. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein
it has been 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 appellate court.The whole purpose of the
revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the
court to do justice in accordance with the principles
of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 11 of 13
-- 11 of 13 --
court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be
equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of
the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is
shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the
decision is based on no material or where the material
facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the
courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of
their revisional jurisdiction.”
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused
was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of
conviction by substituting its own view. This Court
set aside the High Court’s order holding that the High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its
views and that too without any legal basis.”
22.The argument regarding necessity of recovery of the original
document is found to be speculative and unsupported by material
on the record, particular in view of the stand taken by the
respondents that the original is not with them.
23.Therefore, in my considered opinion the Ld Magistrate has passed
the impugned order after considering all the relevant factors and
this court can not interfere with rightful exercise of the
discretionary powers vested in the Ld Magistrate. Ld counsel for
revisionist has failed to point out any patent illegality or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
24.In the case at hand, I find that the Ld. Magistrate has rightly
exercised the discretionary power vested in him. I do not find any
malafide or arbitrary exercise of discretion. Accordingly, this
court finds no valid reasons to interfere in the order dated
23.12.2024. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 12 of 13
-- 12 of 13 --
25.TCR be sent back along with copy of judgment to Ld Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (BHUPINDER SINGH)
Court on 22nd April, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-05,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi
Cr Rev /136/2025 Sneh Lata Jain & Ors Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors Page No. 13 of 13
-- 13 of 13 --