Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 1
of 17
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 135/2024
In the matter of :-
(1) Sh. Ravinder Singh,
S/o Late Katar Singh,
R/o Village Dhanora, Chandi Nagar,
Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
(2) Sh. Sanjeev,
S/o Sh. Raj Bahadur,
R/o Khasra No. 346, Pooja Colony,
Village Pavi, Sadatpur,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
(3) Sh. Devender Rana,
S/o Sh. Katar Singh,
R/o H.No. 32-A, Gali No.7,
Bank Colony, Harsh Vihar,
North East, Delhi-110093.
……… Revisionists
(through Sh. Akash Deep Arya, Advocate)
Versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
.........Respondent
(through Ld. Addl. PP for the State)
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTIONS
397/399 CR.P.C.
Date of institution : 07.06.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 06.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 11.05.2026
-- 1 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 2
of 17
J U D G M E N T :
1. The present revision petition has been filed U/s 397/399
Cr.P.C. on behalf of revisionists/ accused persons to set aside the
order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Ld. MM-07, Shahdara
District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CR Case No. 236/2023
(FIR No. 986/2020, P.S. Harsh Vihar), vide which accused
persons were discharged for commission of the offences
punishable U/s 506/34 IPC, however, order for framing of charges
was passed against revisionists/ accused persons for commission
of offences punishable U/s 420/34/120B IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the undersigned would be
referring to the parties as per their original nomenclature before
the Ld. Trial Court.
Factual Matrix
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Jitender gave
two Hindi typed complaints to the police, one dated 10.04.2018
and another dated 06.10.2020. In both of them he alleged that
around two years ago one day he was going in an auto-rickshaw,
talking with his relative, apprising his relative that his
(complainant’s) son has failed in physical test of Delhi Police. On
hearing this, the auto driver i.e. accused Sanjeev told him that he
can get his (complainant’s) son recruited in Delhi Police as he has
a relative namely Devender Rana who can help his
(complainant’s) son in getting job in Delhi Police. Incidentally,
-- 2 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 3
of 17
both auto-driver and his relative Devender Rana were also
residents of Harsh Vihar Colony where complainant was residing.
It is contended that thereafter, accused Devender Rana met the
complainant and told the complainant that he has good
connections with officers of Delhi Police and assured the
complainant that he would get his (complainant’s) son clear the
physical test in Delhi Police and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs for the
same from the complainant. Later on, accused Sanjeev alongwith
accused Ravinder came to the shop of the complainant a number
of times, on that he apprised them that the money has not been
arranged yet. Again on 15.09.2016 accused Sanjeev and accused
Ravinder came to the shop of the complainant at Harsh Vihar, on
that he apprised them that he has arranged Rs. 3 lakhs only, on
that they told the complainant to talk with accused Devender and
they took him to the accused Devender. On that Devender told the
complainant to give Rs. 3 lakhs now and further told him to give
Rs. 2 lakhs later on, on that complainant paid Rs. 3 lakhs in cash
to accused Devender at his house situated at Harsh Vihar. Even
after lapse of time and a number of visit at the house of Devender,
Devender did not help, on that complainant demanded his money
back. Devender told him to take money from accused Sanjeev and
accused Sanjeev told him to take money from accused Devender.
Later on, complainant came to know that accused Devender was
working in Delhi Police. Infact, accused Devender threaten the
complainant that he would falsely implicate him (complainant) in
some case.
-- 3 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 4
of 17
4. No action was taken by the police on the complaint dated
10.04.2018, however in the year 2020 present FIR was registered
on the complaint dated 06.10.2020 against accused persons
namely Devender Rana, Ravinder and Sanjeev.
5. During investigation it is apprised by the complainant that
his known Kali Charan Sharma was present when he had handed
over the money to accused Devender Rana. Complainant has also
apprised that he took Rs. 90,000/- from one Lokesh.
6. IO recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Kali Charan
Sharma as well as of Lokesh. IO had joined the accused persons in
the investigation.
7. On 04.01.2023 i.e. just two days prior to filing of the
charge-sheet on 06.01.2023 IO Inspector Vinit Kumar gave a
notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the complainant asking him to provide
the details of jeweller to whom he had sold jewellery of his wife
to arrange a portion of money and he also asked the complainant
to provide admit card of his son for physical examination test in
Delhi Police and all other details regarding recruitment of his son
in Delhi Police for which money was taken from him by the
accused persons.
This notice was replied by the complainant wherein he
gave reply that in the year 2016 he had sold jewellery of his wife
to a tenant for Rs. 1,10,000/-. After sometime that tenant left the
-- 4 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 5
of 17
house and he does not remember the name and present address of
that tenant. Qua documents of his son, it is replied by the
complainant that accused persons had taken photocopies of his
son’s documents and also took signatures of his son on a plain
paper and had told him that they would fill the form themselves,
thus his son did not receive any admit card.
8. On the above-stated facts, it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for
the State that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charges
for commission of offences U/s 420/34/120B IPC against accused
persons.
9. After summoning the accused persons, documents were
supplied to them by the Court, arguments were heard on the point
of charge and vide order dated 14.05.2024, it was held by the Ld.
Trial Court that “there are sufficient grounds to frame charges
against the accused persons for the offence under Section
420/34/120B IPC. However, the allegations of the complainant
regarding criminal intimidation are vague and bereft of details like
date of incident, exact utterances of each accused etc. In view of
the same, the accused persons are discharged for the offence under
Section 506/34 IPC”.
Separate charge framed and explained to all three accused
persons under Section 420/34/120B IPC, who have pleaded not
guilty and have claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was kept for
Prosecution Evidence.
-- 5 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 6
of 17
Grounds of Revision
10. Being aggrieved of the above-said order, the revisionists
have assailed the same on following grounds:-
(i) That the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate
that accused Sanjeev and accused Ravinder
Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from
the complainant which they had returned in
various installments. Infact, they paid Rs.
2,06,000/- against that loan.
(ii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to
appreciate that in September 2017 the
complainant gave a written complaint only
against accused persons namely Sanjeev and
Ravinder Singh wherein he complained qua
non-return of friendly loan. In respect of that
complaint, a notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. dated
01.09.2017 was served on accused Sanjeev
by HC Rajdeep to join the investigation.
(iii) It is contended that in the year 2018 same
complaint was made by the complainant
wherein accused persons namely Sanjeev
and Ravinder Singh paid a sum of Rs.
40,000/- to the complainant. It is contended
that police has made no investigation
whatsoever in the present matter.
11. Formal reply was filed by the complainant Jitender in
response to the present petition, however the same was not taken
on record for non-payment of cost imposed on him. Since cost
imposed on the complainant has not been paid, hence this reply
cannot be read being not a part of the record. However, from this
reply one thing became clear that complainant has made a
-- 6 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 7
of 17
complaint in the year 2017 as well qua which HC Rajdeep issued
notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. to accused Sanjeev.
12. During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for
revisionists/ accused persons that in the entire charge-sheet there
are no details of the son of the complainant whether he had given
any physical test of Delhi Police. There is no document of any
physical test whatsoever. It is contended that the story that
accused Sanjeev met the complainant in an auto-rickshaw is a
made up one, rather accused Sanjeev, complainant and accused
Ravinder Singh were close friends. Accused persons namely
Sanjeev and Ravinder Singh had taken a loan from the
complainant. Later on, the money was returned in installments.
However, due to delay in returning money, the present complaint
was filed. It is contended that infact, initially in 2017 complainant
made a complaint qua non-return of friendly loan. In 2018 in order
to put pressure on accused persons namely Sanjeev and Ravinder
Singh, he included name of accused Ravinder Singh’s brother
Devender Rana who was a government servant and also changed
the story from non-return of money to commission of fraud.
Thereafter, in 2018 complainant settled the matter with accused
persons namely Ravinder Singh and Sanjeev, but in 2020 he again
made the same complaint. It is contended that the accused persons
had filed an application for further investigating the matter as
police did not properly investigated the matter, however Ld. Trial
Court rejected their application. In these circumstances, it is
-- 7 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 8
of 17
requested that accused persons may be discharged from the
present matter.
13. Opportunity of complainant to advance arguments was
closed vide order dated 06.04.2026.
14. Arguments heard on behalf of complainant as well as on
behalf of State and record including Trial Court Record perused
carefully.
15. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr., AIR 1979 3 SCC 4, while dealing
with the powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure had held as under:-
“... (1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has
not been properly explained the Court will be, fully
justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By
and large however if two views are equally possible and
the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before
him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within
his right to discharge the accused.
-- 8 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 9
of 17
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227
of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is
a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a
Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has
to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the
case and so on. This however does not mean that the
Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial...”
16. In
P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398,
Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the judgment in
Union of
India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) and after quoting Section
227 Cr.P.C observed as under :-
“…. 10. Before considering the merits of the claim of
both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as
under:
“227. Discharge:-
If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this
behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing.
11. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
Further, the words “not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the
Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at
the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his
judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by
the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not
necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of
-- 9 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 10
of 17
the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence
and probabilities which is really the function of the
court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227,
the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. In other words, the
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the
nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which ex facie
disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against
the accused so as to frame a charge against him….”
17. Similarly, in
State of M.P. Vs. S. B. Johari, (2000) 2 SCC
57, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that charge can be
quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce
to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence,
if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular
offence and in such case, there would be no sufficient ground for
proceeding with the trial.
18. A reading of the above-mentioned judgments would show
that while framing a charge, the Court has the power to sift and
weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether
or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been made out. It
is further trite to say that a Judge is not a mere post office to frame
the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his
judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether
a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. After
analyzing the materials before it, if two views are possible and the
judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
-- 10 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 11
of 17
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the
accused, he will be fully justified in discharging the accused.
19. In the case in hand, charge is directed to be framed against
accused persons for commission of offences punishable U/s
420/34/120B IPC. The alleged fraud committed by the accused
persons is that they assured the complainant that they would get
his son’s Delhi Police physical test cleared for which they took
money from the complainant, but did not deliver on their promise.
20. The present case is a classic one wherein no investigation
whatsoever has been done by the police qua the alleged
allegations made by the complainant as apparent from the
following facts :-
(i) In the entire charge-sheet there is not even a mention of
the name of son of the complainant for whose physical test money
was given. No age of that boy and no educational qualification of
that boy have been mentioned to ascertain if there was any son of
the complainant having the required age and educational
qualification to appear in the Delhi Police test. The entire charge-
sheet is silent on this aspect. There is no document whatsoever to
show if complainant was having a son.
(ii) As per story of the complainant, two years prior to 2018
i.e. in 2016 he was talking with some relative in an auto-rickshaw
being driven by accused Sanjeev and saying that his son has not
-- 11 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 12
of 17
cleared the physical test of Delhi Police. There is no document
whatsoever on record to suggest that son of the complainant had
taken the physical test of Delhi Police in 2016 or prior to that in
which he had failed. No document whatsoever has been proved on
record by the complainant. No document has been collected by the
IO from Delhi Police Recruitment Division which might have
conducted the physical test.
(iii) It is claimed by the complainant that in September 2016
he paid Rs. 3 lakhs and agreed to pay further Rs. 2 lakhs on the
assurance that physical test in Delhi Police of his son would be
cleared. However, no document whatsoever has been filed on
record to show if son of the complainant had taken up any
physical test after September 2016 or in 2017. Infact, when IO
gave a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the complainant to provide admit
card of his son for physical examination test in Delhi Police and
all other details regarding recruitment of his son in Delhi Police,
he simply stated that accused persons took xerox copies of his
son’s documents and also took signatures of his son on a plain
paper and had told him that they would fill the form themselves,
thus his son did not receive any admit card.
Apparently, no form whatsoever qua recruitment in Delhi
Police was filled by that imaginary son of the complainant before
or after September 2016 or in 2017. It is improbable that even
without filling the form the complainant was expecting that his
son would clear the physical test of Delhi Police and for that he
-- 12 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 13
of 17
paid money to the accused persons.
No record has been collected by the IO qua any Delhi
Police Recruitment Drive taken place in 2016 or 2017 for which
the alleged money was paid or wherein the son of the complainant
had applied.
(iv) There is no proof qua payment of sum of Rs. 3 lakhs
allegedly paid by the complainant to the accused Devender Rana,
except the bald statement of the complainant and the bald
statements of witnesses namely Kali Charan Sharma and Lokesh.
As per complaint, complainant had gone only with accused
persons namely Sanjeev and Ravinder Singh to the house of
accused Devender Rana for giving money, however during
investigation in order to strength his claim complainant introduced
a witness Kali Charan Sharma in whose presence the money was
given, while name of this Kali Charan Sharma was not there in the
complaint as the witness of payment. There is no document
executed between the complainant and Lokesh qua payment of Rs.
90,000/- given by Lokesh to the complainant.
(v) In reply to the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. qua source of
remaining money complainant claimed that in the year 2016 he
had sold jewellery of his wife to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- to one
of his tenant. After sometime that tenant left the house and
complainant does not remember the name and present address of
that tenant.
-- 13 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 14
of 17
It is highly unbelievable that complainant did not even
remember name of that tenant who was residing in his house and
to whom he sold the jewellery. This evasive replies show that no
such money was ever arranged by the complainant.
(vi) The accused persons have claimed that in the year 2017
complainant had made a complaint against accused persons
namely Sanjeev and Ravinder Singh and the said complaint was
only in respect of the non-return of the loan amount taken from
him. There was no mention of any offence of fraud in the same.
Complainant also accepted making of a complaint in 2017.
However, IO did not make any effort to collect copy of that
complaint which would have made it crystal clear that initial
grievance of the complainant was only non-return of money given
as loan and there was no angle of fraud.
(vii) In the present matter, there is no corroborating evidence
apart from the oral testimony of the complainant qua alleged fraud
being committed with him.
21. The above-stated discussion has categorically shown that
the oral testimony of the complainant is not trustworthy as in the
entire investigation son of the complainant has not been joined.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant was
having a son who was having requisite age and educational
qualification to take up the Delhi Police Recruitment Examination
during the relevant time or that son had failed in the physical test
-- 14 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 15
of 17
of Delhi Police in the year 2016 or prior to that, or that the said
son again appeared in physical test of Delhi Police in the year
2016 or 2017 for which money was paid by the complainant.
Further, the inaction on the part of the complainant for two
years, as well as lack of independent evidence apart from oral
testimony of the complainant and his two known persons, a
genuine doubt arises in the mind of the Court that the allegations
may be motivated and false.
22. In the case in hand, there is no other evidence apart from
statement of the complainant on record. In view of the above-
stated discussions, the statement of the complainant does not
inspires such confidence so as to give rise to grave suspicion
against the accused persons of having committed the offence of
fraud.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case decided
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as
M Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi, Crl.Rev.P. 1032/2024, decided on 16.08.2024 wherein it
was held that
....when the primary material on record is only the
statement of the prosecutrix, the Court cannot be precluded from
considering whether the same inspires such confidence so as to
give rise to grave suspicion against the accused person of having
committed the crime .
23. Perusal of the record does not raise grave suspicion for
framing of charge against revisionists/ accused persons. Reliance
-- 15 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 16
of 17
being placed upon the case titled as
State Vs. Dr. Narender
Mohan, 2019 Del HC wherein it was held that if two views are
possible, the one favouring the accused has to be accepted.
24. It is to be noted that the stage of framing charge is a
critical judicial filter, not an automatic formality. By
distinguishing grave suspicion from mere suspicion, the Court can
terminate frivolous prosecutions early, protecting citizens from the
trauma and stigma of unwarranted trials (reliance placed on case
titled as
Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba Vs. The State of West
Bengal, decided on 02.12.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court).
25. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and
incomplete investigation done by the police as observed above, it
is held that there is no evidence on record to frame charges against
the revisionists/ accused persons as even the very basis/ premise
of offence of fraud has not been proved on record as stated above.
Thus, no case is made out against revisionists/ accused persons.
The revisionists/ accused persons are accordingly, discharged. As
such, impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court is set-aside qua revisionists/ accused persons and present
revision petition stands allowed.
26. Copy of this judgment alongwith Trial Court Record be
sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and records.
-- 16 of 17 --
DLSH010039922024
Crl. Rev. No. 135/2024
Sanjeev & Ors.
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CR Case No. 236/2023
Page 17
of 17
27. This file be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 11th May, 2026
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
Special Judge (NDPS Act)
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts
Delhi/11.05.2026
-- 17 of 17 --