Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct Case- 9366/2024
Subodh Gupta Vs. Tarsem Chand Aggarwal
PS Shakarpur
18.02.2026
Present : Sh. Mahender Kumar Bhardwa for complainant (through VC).
The matter is listed for arguments on application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 18.02.2026
At 04:00 pm
Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under Section 175 (3)
BNSS filed on behalf of the complainant.
Briefly stated facts of the case is that the complainant was the absolute
owner of property bearing No. S-595B, Gali No. 4, Nehru Enclave, School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi–110092, measuring 200 square yards. The complainant was interested
in purchasing another property bearing No. 434, Pocket-C, IFC, Ghazipur, Delhi–
110096, measuring 200 square meters. Therefore, in order to arrange funds, the
complainant was ready to sell the aforesaid property bearing No. S-595B. Further
stated that Tarsem Chand Aggarwal (Accused No. 1) and Shivam Aggarwal (Accused
No. 2) showed their interest in purchasing the said property of the complainant, and the
deal was finalized between the complainant and the accused persons for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 2,57,50,000/-. Further stated that on 20/12/2022, an Agreement to
Sell was executed, wherein the accused persons were required to make a payment of
Rs. 25,00,000/- to the complainant as advance payment. It was agreed between both
parties that the remaining amount of Rs. 2,32,50,000/- would be paid by the accused
persons to the complainant at the time of registration of the Sale Deed, on or before
20/04/2023.Further stated that as per the said Agreement dated 20/12/2022, the
complainant received two cheques, one for Rs. 11,00,000/- and another for Rs.
5,00,000/-. The accused persons requested that the remaining Rs. 9,00,000/- would be
given after some time. Further stated that the accused persons offered to pay Rs.
9,00,000/- in cash, but the complainant refused to receive such a huge amount in cash,
stating that cash transactions in property dealings are illegal. Thereafter, the mediator of
-- 1 of 5 --
the deal, namely Ajay Gupta (Accused No. 3), requested the complainant and his
brother, Satender Kumar Gupta, along with Sunil Jain, who were present at that time, to
accept Rs. 9,00,000/- in cash as a surety amount, as the accused persons did not have
sufficient funds in their bank accounts. It was assured that the said amount of Rs.
9,00,000/- would subsequently be transferred through proper banking channels by the
accused persons and the cash would be returned within a few days. Further stated that
the complainant made repeated requests to the accused persons to make the payment of
Rs. 9,00,000/- through their bank accounts and to take back the cash amount of Rs.
9,00,000/-, but the accused persons made false excuses on one pretext or the other.
Further stated that on 05/04/2023, the accused persons expressed their inability to
arrange funds as per the Agreement and requested the complainant to cancel the said
deal. Further stated that at the request of the accused persons, the complainant
contacted the mediator (Accused No. 3) and requested him to visit his office along with
the accused persons. However, Accused No. 3 along with Accused No. 4 came to the
complainant’s office and confirmed the cancellation of the deal by the accused persons
and requested the complainant to return the advance payment. Further stated that the
complainant, along with Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4, went to ICICI Bank,
Shakarpur, Delhi, and returned Rs. 11,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- to the account of the
accused persons in the same manner in which the amount had been received. Further
stated that after transferring the aforesaid Rs. 16,00,000/- (11+5 lakhs), the
complainant, along with Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4, returned to the office,
where the complainant handed over the cash amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- which had
earlier been given as surety. Further stated that after counting and confirming the cash
amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-, Accused No. 3 was requested to call Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to
the office. However, Accused No. 3 stated that they were not interested in visiting the
office and requested the complainant to visit the shop of his relative, namely Omi
Cycle, stating that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 would be present there. Further stated that as
per the request of Accused No. 3, the complainant agreed to visit the shop of the
relative of Accused No. 3. The complainant, along with his brother Satender Kumar
Gupta, Sushil, and Accused No. 3, went to the said shop carrying Rs. 9,00,000/- in
cash. Accused No. 3 made a call to Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who reached the shop shortly
thereafter. Accused No. 3 handed over the cash amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to Accused
Nos. 1 and 2 and requested them to count, confirm, and acknowledge the same. Further
stated that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 counted the cash and confirmed receipt of Rs.
9,00,000/-. They also confirmed receipt of the earlier amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- (11+5
lakhs) and acknowledged that they had received the total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and
that the deal stood cancelled. Thereafter, the complainant requested Accused Nos. 1 and
2 to hand over the original Agreement to Sell with an endorsement acknowledging
receipt of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Accused No. 1 handed over the cash of Rs. 9,00,000/- to
Accused No. 2, who left the shop with the said amount. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 took
-- 2 of 5 --
out the original Agreement to Sell from his pocket and tore it into pieces, stating in
abusive language that since the deal had been cancelled, there was no need for the
document or any endorsement. Despite requests not to do so, Accused No. 1 threw the
torn pieces into a drain and used abusive language towards the complainant, stating that
the complainant did not have faith in them. Further stated that the complainant
questioned Accused No. 1 regarding proof of full and final settlement of Rs.
25,00,000/- including the Rs. 9,00,000/- in cash and confirmation of cancellation of the
deal. Accused No. 1 left the shop. The complainant suspected ill intentions on the part
of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and attempted to call the police. However, Accused Nos. 3 and
4 stopped the complainant and requested that the police not be informed, stating that
the shop belonged to a relative of Accused No. 3. They assured the complainant that the
deal had been cancelled and that if required, a receipt for the Rs. 9,00,000/- would be
provided, further assuring that no cheating or forgery would be committed. Further
stated that on 26/05/2023, the complainant received a legal notice from Accused Nos. 1
and 2, annexed as Annexure A. Upon receiving the notice, the complainant consulted
his advocate, Brijesh Sharma, and came to know that a fraud and criminal conspiracy
had been committed by the accused persons. A reply to the legal notice was sent
through his advocate, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure B. Further stated that the
complainant approached Accused No. 3 and narrated the fraud committed by the
accused persons and questioned why such a conspiracy had been made against him.
Accused No. 3 expressed negligence regarding the issue and stated that Accused Nos. 1
and 2 had issued a false and fabricated notice in the heat of passion after cancellation of
the deal, and assured that no fraud would be committed. Further stated that on
26/10/2023, the complainant received a court notice/summons issued by the Hon’ble
Court of Shri Anil Kumar Paswan, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi–110032.
After receiving the summons, the complainant consulted his advocate and confirmed
that a conspiracy and fraud had been committed against him. Further stated that the
complainant again approached Accused No. 3 regarding the conspiracy, but Accused
No. 3 did not provide a satisfactory reply and stated that the matter could be settled
mutually by taking and giving some amount. Further stated that the complainant
confirmed that the acts of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were part of a conspiracy to extort
money from him and that they were attempting to blackmail him for monetary gain.
Thereafter stated that the complainant lodged a complaint dated 21/11/2023 with the
SHO, Shakarpur, requesting preservation of CCTV footage and CDR records of the
mobile numbers of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. However, no action was taken by the police
officials. The complainant also sent emails to higher officials of Delhi Police, including
the DCP East Delhi, ACP Shakarpur, and the Commissioner of Police, and copies of the
same are annexed as Annexures C and D. Further stated that since the concerned SHO
and DCP failed to take any legal action, including registration of an FIR as per law,
against the accused persons, the complainant has no other legal remedy but to approach
this Hon’ble Court by filing the present criminal complaint case along with an
application under Section 223 BNSS 2023 read with Section 175(3) BNSS, in the
-- 3 of 5 --
interest of justice.
I have carefully perused the application u/s 175 (3) BNSS as well as the
other material on record. As per the status report filed by the IO,
It is stated that the complaint filed by Sh. Subodh Gupta was received at
PS Shakarpur on 28.11.2023 vide Ref. No. ICMS-81680522301287123. Further stated
that the complainant mentioned in his complaint that he was interested in selling his
property bearing No. S-595-B, Shakarpur, Delhi. The alleged persons, Tarsem Chand
Aggrawal and Shivam Aggrawal, showed their interest in purchasing the above-
mentioned property, and the deal was finalized between the complainant and the
accused persons for an amount of Rs. 2,57,50,000/-. Further stated that on 20.12.2022,
an Agreement to Sell was executed wherein the alleged persons were to make a
payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to the complainant as advance payment, and the remaining
amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the Sale Deed on or before
20.04.2023. The complainant received Rs. 16 lakhs through cheques and Rs. 9 lakhs in
cash. Thereafter, on 05.04.2023, the alleged persons showed their inability to arrange
the funds and requested cancellation of the said deal. The complainant returned the
advance payment in the same manner, i.e., Rs. 16 lakhs through bank transfer and Rs. 9
lakhs in cash. The complainant asked for proof of repayment of Rs. 25 lakhs; however,
the alleged persons did not provide any proof or receipt of the said amount. Further
mentioned that on 26.05.2023, the complainant received a legal notice from the above-
mentioned alleged persons demanding an outstanding amount of Rs. 34,00,000/-. The
complainant also received summons from the Hon’ble Court of Sh. Anil Kumar
Paswan, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, on 26.10.2023, as Civil Suit No. 431/2023 had
been filed by the alleged persons against the complainant, and the next date of hearing
is fixed for 04.02.2025. Further stated that the above complaint was enquired into by SI
Subham, and the same was filed as the matter was found to be civil in nature, being
related to financial transactions. No ingredient of any cognizable offence was made out;
hence, no FIR was registered (reply enclosed herewith). Further stated that the
undersigned undertakes to abide by any direction passed by the Hon’ble Court in this
regard.
In M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs State, Cited as 2001 IV AD (Delhi)
625, the circumstances when the power of Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be
exercised has been explained.
-- 4 of 5 --
“7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a
Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate
investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on
proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases
where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant
himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there
should be no need to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the
Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper
application of mind and only in those cases where the 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 in to held the complainant. The police
assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section
202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with
the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex
Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled " Suresh Chand Jain
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
After going through the complaint and hearing the arguments, it is seen
that the entire facts is known to the complainant or the complainant can get the
evidence summoned through the process of this court and nothing new is to be
collected for which the assistance of the police is required. Even the identity of the
proposed accused persons is known to the complainant and has been mentioned in the
complaint. Besides, if after examination of the complainant, any police assistance is
required, the court is within its power to direct investigation under section 225 BNSS.
Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no ground for this court
to exercise jurisdiction under Section 175 (3) BNSS. Accordingly, the application under
Section 175 (3) BNSS. is hereby dismissed.
Before parting with the order, cognizance on the complaint under section
210 (1)(a) BNSS is hereby taken.
To come up for pre summoning evidence under Section 223 BNSS on
20-07-2026.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 18-02-2026
-- 5 of 5 --