Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI DELHI
Criminal Revision No: 162/2025
CNR NO. DLWT01-002140/2025
In the matter of :
1. M/s. A2Z Infraservices Limited
Through its Authorized Representative
Having its Registered Office at
O-116, First Floor, DLF Shopping Mall,
DLF City, Phase-1, Arjun Marg,
Gurugram – 122002.
2. Mr. Amit Mittal
Director of M/s. A2Z Infraservices Limited
Having its Registered Office at
O-116, First Floor, DLF Shopping Mall,
DLF City, Phase-1, Arjun Marg,
Gurugram – 122002. ....Revisionist(s)
Versus
1. State
Through S.H.O.
P.S. – Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110001.
2. Mahendra Kumar Rawat
S/o Sh. Hari Prasad Rawat
R/o 2303, Tower-34, Lotus Boulevard Espacia,
Sector-100, Near Pathways School, Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. – 201301. .....Respondent(s)
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 26
-- 1 of 26 --
Date of Institution : 27.03.2025
Date of reserving order : 06.03.2026
Date of pronouncement : 11.03.2026
O R D E R
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the
revisionist under Section 440 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated
20.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘
Impugned Order’) passed
by Ld. JMFC-06, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Ld. Trial Court’) in Ct. Case No. 371/2025 titled as
Mahendra Kumar Rawat Vs. M/s. A2Z Infraservices Limited, whereby
application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC/175(3) of BNSS filed by the
complainant/revisionist No. 2 was allowed and directions for
registration of FIR were passed.
Brief facts of the case
2. It has been alleged that in the year 2021, respondent No.
2/complainant was approached by the revisionist/ accused persons
through Sh. Praveen Sharma to assist in securing and managing a
facility management tender floated for Dr. SPM Civic Center, Minto
Road, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2/complainant was assured that if
he is able to successfully procure the tender through his expertise then
he would share the profits earned therefrom. Accordingly, with due
hard work and efforts of respondent No. 2/complainant, the
revisionist/proposed accused successfully procured the said tender. It
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 26
-- 2 of 26 --
is alleged that upon demanding the rightful dues, the respondent No.
2/complainant and his associates faced criminal intimidation, physical
assault and threats of life and false litigation from the accused persons.
It is further alleged that the accused persons have induced the
complainant through deception and caused wrongful gain to
themselves and wrongful loss to him with malafide intentions thereby
committing the offences including cheating, criminal intimidation etc.
The accused persons also denuded the labours working at the project
site with their rightful dues and thus also caused criminal
misappropriation of funds belonging to those labours as well as the
concerned Government Authorities. It is further alleged that the
accused persons exaggerated their share prices by committing insider-
trading through the tender of Dr. SPM Civic Center and
misappropriated the increased fundings by investing it into his foreign
entities thereby causing the money laundering as well as through
siphoning of funds. It is further stated that the accused persons had
shown ‘Overhead Charges” in the profit sheets and the same were
shared with the complainant for assessing and distributing the profits
as per their agree terms and later it was revealed to be siphoned by the
accused persons for earning illegitimate wealth at the expense of
complainant as well as general public i.e. investors in the petitioner
company thereby guilt of committing SEBI related frauds. It is further
submitted that the accused persons are habitual financial offender,
who have earlier also committed financial wrongdoings.
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 26
-- 3 of 26 --
Arguments addressed by Revisionist
3. Assailing the impugned order, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the
impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is
erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures and contrary to settled
legal position; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the Action Taken
Report (ATR) filed by the police, before passing the
impugned order;
that Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that there was a dispute
between the parties over financial transaction between them, hence, a
civil/commercial dispute cannot be converted into a criminal
litigation; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the alleged
evidence was well within the control of the complainant, hence, no
police assistance required; that Ld. Trial Court exceeded its
jurisdiction despite the fact mentioned in the ATR that the alleged
offence has not been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Court; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the complaint
was filed with ulterior motives, malafide intentions and to blackmail
the revisionist; that the respondent No. 2/complainant played fraud
upon the Court by concealing the Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) executed between the parties for Consultancy Services at
Gurugram, Haryana which has also the dispute clauses and the fact
that he has already filed suit in Civil Courts at Gurugram, Haryana for
the financial transaction dispute between the parties. Hence, it is
argued that the
impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 26
-- 4 of 26 --
4. To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist
has placed reliance upon following judgments.
a. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
S.
P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by LR’s Vs. Jagannath
(Dead) by LR’s and Ors. reported in
(1994) 1 SCC 1, has
held that:
5. xxxxx The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot
be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes
an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The
courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the
parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean
hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not,
process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-
evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons
from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient
lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on
falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
6. xxxxxx A litigant, who approaches the court, is
bound to produce all the documents executed by him which
are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital
document in order to gain advantage on the other side then
he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as
on the opposite party.
b. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
W. P. (Crl.) No.
209/2023 titled as
Ravinder Lal Airi Vs. S. Shalu
Construction Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. (Dated 24.01.2023), has
held that:
12. The Delhi High Court in “Nishu Wadhwa vs. Siddharth
Wadhwa & Anr.” in W.P.(CRL) 1253/2016 on 10.01.2017
observed as under:
“13. The issue that since the accused has not been
summoned as an accused and has no right to file a
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 26
-- 5 of 26 --
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. I am of the view that the registration of FIR affects
the fundamental right and freedom of the accused person.
He can be summoned for investigation, arrested without
warrants for allegations of cognizable offences. Therefore,
an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is
not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against
the same would be maintainable as the accused has a
valuable right to be heard.
xxxxx
16. In “Harpal Singh Arora and Ors. vs. State and Anr.”
2008 (103) DRJ 282 this Court formulated the relevant
question which reads as under:
“(b) Is a Magistrate, when approached thereafter by
a complainant with a complaint under Section 190
read with Section 200 CrPC along with an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC seeking a
direction for investigation by the police, bound to
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 26
-- 6 of 26 --
deal with the said report before disposing of the
application under Section 156 (3) CrPC and
proceeding with the complaint under Section 200
CrPC?
. . . .
16. Considering the fact that the learned MM called
for the report of the CAW Cell, which is fairly
detailed, the proper course of action before ordering
an investigation under Section 156 (3) would have
been to examine that report before deciding to issue
a direction for investigation. When the police in the
CAW Cell has come to conclusion that no
cognizable offence is made out, the Magistrate
cannot brush aside that conclusion lightly. Although
that the said conclusion of the CAW Cell is not
binding on the Magistrate at that stage, since his
order is a judicial one he must give reasons, however
brief, why he is inclined to order investigation
notwithstanding the said report.
Question (b) is answered accordingly.”
17. In “Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel vs. Dhirubhai
Sambhubhai”
1998(1) Crimes 351, the Gujarat High Court
took exception to the growing tendency of asking the police
to investigate cases u/s 156(3) of the Code and advised
Magistrate not to pass orders mechanically. It was held:-
“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”
c. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Crl. M. C. No.
1463/2020 titled as
Alok Kumar Vs. Harsh Mander & Ors.
(Dated 21.07.2023), wherein it has been held that :
40. To summarise, a conspectus of the above-mentioned
judicial precedents reveals the following:
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 26
-- 7 of 26 --
(i) Power under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. necessitates
application of judicial mind.
(ii) Such power is to be exercised in a judicious
manner, and cannot be exercised mechanically or
arbitrarily.
(iii) Magistrates cannot direct registration of FIR on
mere asking of complainant.
xxxxxxx
50. In the present case, the learned Magistrate had
observed in the impugned order that the allegations
levelled by respondent no. 1 disclosed commission of a
cognizable offence, and thus, registration of FIR was
mandatory. However, the impugned order is completely
silent as to commission of which offence under IPC or any
other law was disclosed from the averments made in the
complaint and against whom. Further, in paragraph 6 of the
impugned order, it was directed that the police should first
investigate and find out whether actually any offence has
been committed or not.
xxxxx
60. Though, in many cases, the evidence as to how a
cognizable offence is made out may be ascertained at the
outset, in case of no specific allegations or material on
record, a Court cannot order registration of FIR in a
mechanical manner without actually recording its
satisfaction as to whether the essential ingredients of an
offence are prima facie made out or not against the
accused, as also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha
Chakraborty (Supra).
70. Thus, the learned Magistrate could have disagreed with
the Action Taken Report and could have given his own
brief reasons as to how and what cognizable offences were
made out against accused persons including petitioner for
directing registration of FIR.
71. However, in the present case, even if the Action Taken
Report is excluded from consideration, the complaint on
the face of it did not contain even a single allegation
against the present petitioner to have ordered registration
of FIR.
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 8 of 26
-- 8 of 26 --
72. Moreover, in the present case, while directing the
registration of FIR, the learned Magistrate had observed
that ‘a cognizable offence’ was disclosed from the facts so
alleged and the police was duty bound to register an FIR
as per Section 154 Cr. P.C. in view of the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of
Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. However, as also observed
by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Priyanka Srivastava
(supra), Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial
mind since it is not a police officer who is taking steps
under Section 154 Cr. P.C.
73. The purpose behind the enactment of Section 156(3) of
Cr. P.C. was to offer a recourse to citizens by providing a
judicial remedy in situations where the police fails to take
appropriate action upon a complaint disclosing a
cognizable offence. This provision enables an ordinary
individual to approach a criminal court, which, after
carefully examining the contents and material placed
before it by the complainant, can request a status report or
an action taken report from the police. This mechanism
serves to remind and question the police about their duty
and inquire as to why no action has been taken on the
complaint in question. Furthermore, it is evident from the
scheme of Cr. P.C. that a police complaint should be first
lodged by a complainant as per Section 154 before seeking
recourse under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Therefore, directing
registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a
serious judicial function. In case the Court is informed that
the police has failed to do its duty and an application is
moved under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. seeking direction to
register an FIR, the concerned Court is duty bound to
apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case before it
prior to directing registration of the FIR.
xxxxxxx
110.Abuse of process of Law can simply be termed as
misuse of the legal proceedings to achieve something for
which no cause exists, often to harass, intimidate, or gain
an unfair advantage over the opposite party. An abuse of
process of law will be when it is opined that the
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 26
-- 9 of 26 --
continuation or initiation of criminal prosecution will be
unfair and unjust on part of the complainant or
prosecution.
111. The concept of fair trial does not involve being just
and fair only to the prosecution or to an accused. The
adjudicative functions of the criminal courts have to be
cautiously exercised since initiation or continuation
against a person can, at times, be not only unfair to an
accused or proposed accused, but being a criminal case,
can also affect the reputation and life of such a person.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
119.Since the Magisterial Courts are exercising extensive
power to order police investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr. P.C., such power should be exercised after due
application of mind since passing of such order subjects
the proposed accused to investigation by police. The
orders regarding registration of FIRs need to be passed
with great caution after application of judicial mind and by
a reasoned order.
120. While exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.
P.C., the Magistrate must scrutinize a complaint filed
before them to ensure that it discloses material to support
the allegations made therein since they have to not only
protect the interest of the State and the complainant, but
also the interest of an unheard proposed accused. A similar
view, though in context of provisions of Section 202 Cr.
P.C., was taken by a decision rendered by Four-judges
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandra
Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, (1964) 1 SCR 639.
xxxxx
131. This Court is, therefore, constrained to observe that
the Magisterial power may be unlimited but it is not
unfettered and should be used not only with utmost
caution and vigilance, but also with circumspection after
carefully going through the contents of the complaint and
the Action Taken Report, if any, filed by the police.”
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 10 of 26
-- 10 of 26 --
d. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
Prince Vs. State of Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4909, has held that:
“
4. Though the present petition has been filed under the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(‘Cr.P.C.’), in the opinion of this court, on a plain reading
of section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), proceedings are to be “… …
disposed of, continued, held or made… …” in accordance
with the Cr.P.C. only in cases where such proceedings,
viz.“… …any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or
investigation… …”, was pending immediately before the
date on which the BNSS came into force, i.e. 01.07.2024.”
e.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M. C. No.
1144/2023 titled as Indian Institute of Planning and
Managemnet Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Dated
31.07.2024), has held that:
“37. The Court examined the ATR on record and
summarized the findings emerging from the investigation
and relying on the observations of this Court in Gurdeep
Singh Sudan (Supra), wherein it was held that even if the
Magistrate finds himself in disagreement with the view
taken by the police in the action taken report, then also his
order must reflect a brief reasoning for taking a distinctive
view, observed that while in the ATR it was stated that no
cognizable offence was disclosed from the contents of the
complaint, the order of the learned Magistrate was
completely silent on the ATR filed by the police and there
was nothing in the order to show why the learned
Magistrate disagreed with the ATR. Court observed that
the ATR was overlooked and brushed aside in its entirety.
xxxxxx
39. The impugned order, in my view, fails to pass the tests
laid down by the Courts and shows total non-application
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 11 of 26
-- 11 of 26 --
of mind. Learned CMM has not indicated a single reason
to conclude that a cognizable offence was disclosed and
the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made
out. Howsoever brief, learned CMM ought to have spelt
out the reason in the order indicating what weighed with
him to order investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
more so, in light of the 2 ATRs stating otherwise. The
mere statement that from the facts, it is reflected that
cognizable offence is made out and that the alleged
offences are grave and several students may be victims,
cannot be justification enough to direct registration of an
FIR, which has serious repercussions. In Usha
Chakraborty and Another v. State of West Bengal and
Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90; and Alhaj Ebrahim
Khan and Others v. Sopan Pandharinath Lohakare, 2015
SCC OnLine Bom 1668, it was held that the Magistrate
must apply his mind to see whether essential ingredients
of cognizable offences are disclosed and while the
Magistrate is not required to embark on a roving inquiry
on the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, he has
to arrive at a conclusion that application discloses
necessary ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the
impugned order in the present case, does not reflect
application of mind as to how the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences are even prima facie made out and
nothing is forthcoming for disregarding the two ATRs filed
by EOW, bringing on record crucial facts emerging from a
thorough investigation and stating that the disputes are
purely civil arising out of commercial transactions and no
cognizable offence is made out. It is settled that the
Magistrate can disagree with the ATR and take a different
view but the order must indicate some reasoning to differ
and disregard the police reports. On these grounds itself,
in my view, the impugned order become vulnerable and
deserves to be set aside.”
f. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Rikhab Birani and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 823.
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 12 of 26
-- 12 of 26 --
Arguments addressed on behalf of respondents
5. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the
respondent No. 2 supporting the
Impugned Order argued that there is
no infirmity and illegality done by the Ld. Trial Court and has rightly
directed for registration of FIR in the instant matter, hence, no
interference of this Court is required.
5.1 Reply to revision petition has also been filed and it has
been argued on the point of jurisdiction that multiple meetings have
taken place in Hotel Le Meridian, New Delhi wherein inducements
were given by the accused persons, hence, Ld. Trial Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the complainant. It is further
stated that police machinery is required to unearth the truth as the
entire documents, criminal conspiracy for siphoning off funds, illegal
offshore investments by the accused persons etc. are entirely out of the
purview of the complainant, which requires assistance of the police. It
is further stated that the law is well settled that the Magistrate is not
bound by the plea of territorial jurisdiction of the police as the police
is duty bound to conduct the investigation.
5.2 In the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it
has been specifically mentioned that the meetings between the parties
were held at Hotel Le Meridian, New Delhi, hence, jurisdiction of
Delhi Court is made out; that accused Company is Public Limited
Entity but they have manipulated their financial statements; that the
revisionist did not disclose to SEBI about their blacklisting by World
Bank; that money of investors and public tender is involved, hence,
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 13 of 26
-- 13 of 26 --
investigation by police is required; that the restriction of territorial
jurisdiction mentioned in the MoU can only be applied under Civil
Law; that the complaint highlights the violation of terms of MCD
tenders by the revisionist; that the civil remedy availed will not bar the
criminal prosecution.
5.3 To substantiate his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
No. 2/complainant has placed reliance upon following judgment.
a. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of UP and Ors, reported in
(2014) 2 SCC, wherein it has been held that :
“111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154
of the Code, if the information discloses commission
of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In
cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be
supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later
than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.
Action must be taken against erring officers who do
not register the FIR if information received by him
discloses a cognizable offence.
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 14 of 26
-- 14 of 26 --
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry
may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3
months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
b. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Kamala Devi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
(Dated 17.10.2001), has held that :
“Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial
stage merely because civil proceedings are also
pending.”
c. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal reported
in
(1999) 8 SCC 686, wherein it has been held that :
“8. In the last referred case this court also pointed
out that merely because an act has a civil profile is not
sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. We quote
the following observations:
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 15 of 26
-- 15 of 26 --
It may be that the facts narrated in the present
complaint would as well reveal a commercial
transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a
reason for holding that the offence of cheating would
elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a
cheatings were committed in the course of commercial
and also money transactions.”
d. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No.
1047/2006 titled as
Lallan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (12.10.2006), wherein the mandate of
Section 154 Cr. PC has been discussed in detail.
e. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in
Crl. Rev. No.
1597/1991 titled Radhey Shyam Vs. State (Dated
31.07.2019), has held that :
“5. In the matter of judicial review in criminal revision
I find that this Court does not sit in appeal but the
scope is very limited. It is a supervisory jurisdiction
which is exercised by the Court to correct manifest
error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not
be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional
court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has
differently made provisions for appeal and revision and
the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be
maintained.
6. Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the
Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 Sc 196
said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of
the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly
when it is invoked by private complainant against an
order of acquittal which could have been appealed
against by the Government under Section 417. It could
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 16 of 26
-- 16 of 26 --
be exercised only in exceptional cases where the
interests of public justice require interference for the
correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of
a gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be
invoked merely because the lower court has taken a
wrong view of law or misappreciated the evidence on
record.
7. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 it was held that revisional
jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in
exceptional cases only when there is some glaring
defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of
law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice.
However, this was also a case in which revisional
jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal.
If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence
which was admissible or relied on inadmissible
evidence or material evidence has been overlooked
etc., then only this Court would be justified in
exercising revisional power and not otherwise.
8. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra
Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC
707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970
SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram
Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and
others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC
659; and, Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and
another, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1627 (S.C.).
9. In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4)
SCC 649 the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High
Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it
cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence.
While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision
the Court would be justified in refusing to re-
appreciate evidence for determining whether the
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 17 of 26
-- 17 of 26 --
concurrent findings of fact reached by learned
Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct.
10. In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2)
SCC 585 reiterating the above view the Court said that
in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be
justified in substituting its own view for that of a
Magistrate on a question of fact.
11. In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,
2001(9) SCC 631 the Court said:
"The revision power under the Code of Criminal
procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and
casual manner. While exercising such powers the
High Court has no authority to appreciate the
evidence in the manner as the trial and the
appellate courts are required to do. Revisional
powers could be exercised only when it is shown
that there is a legal bar against the continuance
of the criminal proceedings or the framing of
charge or the facts as stated in the First
Information Report even if they are taken at the
face value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence for which the accused has
been charged."
12. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika
Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665, in a matter
again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the
revisional power of High Court was examined and the
Court said:
"4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of
sections conferring higher and superior courts a
sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers
are required to be exercised sparingly. Though
the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be
invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of
evidence and the High Court is not required to
act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 18 of 26
-- 18 of 26 --
the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality
resulting in gross miscarriage of justice."
f. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9
SCC 460, has been referred on the similar lines of power
of Revisional Court, however, it is decided on the point
of charge. Hence, not relied by this Court.
g. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
AIR 2002
Supreme Court 107 has been referred, however, it is
decided on the point of charge. Hence, not relied by this
Court.
Relevant law
6. The Court heard the arguments as advanced by revisionists and
Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have gone through the material
available on record including the Trial Court Record. Before divulging
into the merits of the present matter, it is important to discuss the law
on the point first.
7. The jurisdiction of this Court under revisional power can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of
an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may
be. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey reported in
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1786,
has observed that :
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 19 of 26
-- 19 of 26 --
“8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is
limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence
or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court
is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding
before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a
number of cases, the purpose of this revisional power is to
set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.”
8. With respect to exercising the power under Section 156(3) Cr.
PC for registration of FIR, guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Superior
Court in
M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State reported in
2001
IVAD Delhi 625", have to be borne in mind wherein it has observed
that:
“Para-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."
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 20 of 26
-- 20 of 26 --
9. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Crl. MC No. 6122-23/2005 titled
as
Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs State & Anr., has held as under:
“42. Thus, there are pre-requisites to be followed by the
complainant before approaching the Magistrate under
Section 156(3) of the Code which is a discretionary remedy
as the provision proceeds with the word „May .	‟
The
magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so.
He should pass orders only if he is satisfied that the
information reveals commission of cognizable offences and
also about necessity of police investigation for digging out
of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor
can be procured without the assistance of the police. It is
thus not necessary that in every case where a complaint has
been filed under Section 200 of the Code the Magistrate
should direct the Police to investigate the crime merely
because an application has also been filed under Section
156(3) if the Code even though the evidence to be led by
the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by
summoning witnesses, may be with the assistance of the
court or otherwise. The issue of jurisdiction also becomes
important at that stage and cannot be ignored.
10. In
Mohd. Salim vs. State reported in 175(2010) DLT 473,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that
“11.
The use of the expression “may” in Sub-section (3) of
Section 156 of the Code leaves no doubt that power
conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not
bound to direct investigation by the Police even if the
allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a
cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of a
given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does not
require investigation by the Police and can be proved by the
complainant himself, without any assistance from the
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 21 of 26
-- 21 of 26 --
Police. In that case, he may, instead of directing
investigation by the Police, straightaway take cognizance of
the alleged offence and proceed under Section 200 of the
Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses, if
any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by
the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating
Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of
justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by
the Police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically
direct investigation by the Police without first examining
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
investigation by the State machinery is actually required or
not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple,
where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the
trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and
proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to
the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code. Of Course, if
the allegations made in the complaint require complex and
complicated investigation of which cannot be undertaken
without active assistance and expertise of the State
machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate
to direct investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is,
therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and
needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an
application seeking investigation by the Police.”
11. From the above, the law is clear that it is not mandatory for the
Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR merely because allegations
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Magistrate has
to call for a report from the police as to why no action had been taken
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 22 of 26
-- 22 of 26 --
on an earlier complaint filed by the complainant with the police, and
thereafter, once a report is filed by the police, the Magistrate applies
his mind to the material before him i.e. the complaint as well as the
Action Taken Report which is in the nature of ‘preliminary inquiry’
conducted by the police. After this, the Magistrate after applying his
own judicial mind to the entire material on record can exercise the
option and ‘may’ direct registration of FIR, when necessitated.
Court’s Observation
12. The first and foremost argument on behalf of revisionist has
been on the point of lack of jurisdiction with the Ld. JMFC passing
the impugned order. It has been specifically argued that the office of
the revisionist is at Gurugram, Haryana and as per annexure R-2 i.e.
the MoU was executed between the parties at Gurugram, Haryana
which includes a Clause that in case of any dispute the case shall be
filed at Gurugram. Whereas, as per respondent no 2/ complainant the
meetings where allurement was made to the complainant were held
and MoU was signed at Le Meridian, New Delhi. Hence, the Ld.
JMFC has jurisdiction to entertain the present case. However, there is
no corresponding document or evidence filed on record for the same
and the MoU has been notarized at Gurugram, Haryana.
13.
Secondly, the dispute between the parties is entirely a civil
dispute since it is the issue of non-payment to respondent No.
2/complainant for tender procured by him for the revisionist and for
the same a civil commercial suit has already been filed by the
respondent no.2 at Gurugram Haryana. The filing of the said suit is
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 23 of 26
-- 23 of 26 --
admitted by the respondent no.2 but it has been argued that the civil
commercial suit is different and is only for recovery of due amount
whereas the present case has been filed for cheating the respondent
No. 2, misappropriation of funds, siphoning of the funds and
defrauding MCD, IT Department and SEBI. However, no
corresponding documents of misappropriation or siphoning of funds
has been placed on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegations and
no complaint has been received from MCD, Income Tax department
or SEBI for the same.
14. It has also been argued by the revisionist that the respondent
No. 2 has also filed the present complaint for allegation of molestation
to Ms. N by one of the revisionists, however, the allegations are
within the jurisdiction of Gurugram and a separate complaint has
already been filed by Ms. N to the Police Station at Gurugram,
Haryana. Hence, only to show gravity and seriousness of the present
complaint that said allegations have been deliberately included in the
present complaint though no such incident had ever happened with
Ms. N. Ld, Counsel for respondent no. 2/ Complainant has fairly
conceded that a separate complainant has been filed by Ms. N but
while filing the present complaint the said fact was not in his
knowledge.
15. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to refer the
Action Taken Report filed by the police and relevant portion is
reproduced hereinbelow :
“From the inquiry proceedings conducted, the contents
of the complaint and statements recorded, it is revealed
that there is a payment dispute between Mahender
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 24 of 26
-- 24 of 26 --
Kumar Rawat and Amit Mittal in connection with
tender floated by MCD for the facility management
service at Dr. SPM, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New
Delhi, which seems to be civil in nature and does not
come under the jurisdiction of PS – Parliament Street.”
16. Hence, even from preliminary enquiry conducted by the police,
the main dispute surfaced between the parties is regarding payment in
connection with MCD connection which is purely a business
transaction dispute in view of MoU.
17. The allegations of molestation as already stated occurred within
the jurisdiction of Gurugram and a separate complaint has already
been pursued there.
18. With regard to the allegations of concealment in the MCD
tender, non- compliance of SEBI guidelines, evasion of Income Tax
are concerned, it is already stated no complaint has been received
from any such authority regarding the same and it is in nature of
documentary evidence. Further, the allegations of ‘Overhead
Charges’ and siphoning of funds from one company to another is
within the reach of Registrar of Companies and related documents can
be summoned by the Court.
19. As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, the Ld. Trial
Court has not given any opinion on the disagreement with the Action
Taken Report filed by the police and in nutshell, has given observation
that
prima facie commission of cognizable offence is made out and
serious allegations have been leveled which may constitute criminal
offences like cheating, fraud and breach of trust.
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 25 of 26
-- 25 of 26 --
Conclusion
20. In light of aforesaid discussion and applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Superior Courts in the judgments referred by this
Court and case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsels for both the parties,
this Court finds that the allegations leveled by the respondent No.2
does not warrant police investigation. The Ld. Trial Court has
committed an error by directing registration of FIR when the main
dispute between the parties is related to a business transactions
between them and all the relevant documents are well within the
knowledge and reach of the complainant/revisionist. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
21. Accordingly, present revision petition is hereby allowed and
impugned order dated 20.03.2025 is hereby
set aside.
22. The Trial Court Record along with the copy of this order be
sent back to the learned Trial Court.
23. The Trial Court Record along with the copy of this judgment be
sent back to the learned Trial Court.
Pronounced in the open
Court on 11.03.2026 (Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -06,
NDD, PHC, Delhi
It is certified that this Order contains 26 pages and each page
bears my signatures.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -06,
NDD, PHC, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.162/2025 A2Z Infraservices Ltd. Vs. State & Anr. Page 26 of 26
-- 26 of 26 --