Delhi District Court
Karam Chand Pushye vs State And Anr on 26 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-008219-2025
Criminal Revision No. 287/2025
Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :
SHRI KARAM CHAND PUSHYE
S/O LATE SH. HARI NARAIN
R/O C-1/25, PRASHANT VIHAR,
DELHI- 110085
....Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. STATE
2. MOHD. SALEEM
S/O LATE SH. NOOR MOHD.,
R/O C-2/10, MIG PLATS,
SARAI KHALIL, SADAR BAZAR,
DELHI-110006
....Respondents
Date of Institution : 02.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 26.05.2026
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition
filed under Section 397 Cr.PC/438 BNSS on behalf of revisionist
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.1 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:17
+0530
against impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Sh. Gaurav
Goyal, Ld. JMFC-06, Central, THC, Delhi in case FIR No.
536/2014 PS Sadar Bazar.
1. It is averred that a case bearing FIR No.536/2014, PS
Sadar Bazar is pending before the trial court, wherein charge was
framed by the trial court against revisionist for the offence under
Section 420/468/471 IPC vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024
and being aggrieved by said order, present revision petition is
filed on following grounds:
GROUNDS OF REVISION
a. That the impugned order suffers from patent illegality,
perversity and non- application of judicial mind as it fails
to properly appreciate the material on record and the legal
principles governing the framing of charges.
b. It is further submitted that essential ingredients of offence
of cheating are absent in the present matter as revisionist
was not having any dishonest intention. It is further
averred that revisionist was in actual physical possession
of the shop and he disclosed all the relevant facts about the
property to the complainant and thereafter, transaction was
conducted through proper documentation and receipts
acknowledging payments.
c. It is further averred that complainant was fully aware that
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.2 of 15
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:21
+0530
only possession rights were transferred to him and not the
absolute ownership rights qua property in question as the
same is evident from the nature and contents of documents
executed between the parties i.e. surrender deed, affidavit
and possession letter.
d. It is further submitted that Shri Narinder Kumar Bhatia
had executed in favour of the revisionist a duly notarized
General Power of Attorney (GPA), a Will, and an
Affidavit, thereby unequivocally transferring all rights,
title and interest in the said shop to the revisionist.
Subsequent thereto,the revisionist commenced and
operated his business from the said premises without any
interruption or dispute.
e. It is further submitted that pursuant to a mutual agreement
with the complainant, the revisionist duly transferred
possession of the said shop through validly executed
documents, including a Surrender Deed dated 13.12.2011,
and simultaneously handed over the keys and actual
physical possession to the complainant. The payment
receipts and supporting documents on record
incontrovertibly establish that the transaction was
concluded only after the complainant made the full and
final payment of the agreed consideration.
f. It is further submitted that the revisionist also handed over
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.3 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:25
+0530
all relevant title documents evidencing his rights over the
said shop to the complainant at the time of possession.
Subsequent to full payment, the revisionist executed
necessary possession documents and payment
acknowledgment receipts in favour of the complainant.
g. It is further submitted that revisionist did not conceal any
material fact nor acted with any fraudulent
misrepresentation or dishonest inducement. As such, the
essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC
and by extension, Section 420 IPC are completely absent
in the present case.
h. It is further submitted that there exist glaring
contradictions between the statements of the complainant
and the witness Mr. Sanjeev Bhatia, which completely
undermine the prosecution’s case.
i. It is further submitted that while the complainant claims to
have purchased the shop from the Revisionist for a
consideration of ₹27 lakhs, Mr. Sanjeev Bhatia in his
statement under Section 161 CrPC asserts that his father
namely Narender Kumar Bhatia (from whom the
revisionist purchased the said shop in the year of 2007)
had merely permitted the complainant to use the shop for a
short period.
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.4 of 15
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:29
+0530
j. It is further submitted that the complainant claims that the
Revisionist represented himself as the owner of the shop,
whereas documentary evidence indicates that the
Revisionist only claimed possession rights derived from
Sh. Narender Kumar Bhatia (father of Sanjeev Bhatia).
k. It is further submitted that the complainant’s statement that
he started his business after “purchasing” the shop from
Revisionist contradicts Mr Sanjeev Bhatia’s claim that the
complainant was merely a temporary occupant who
refused to vacate.
l. It is further submitted that these material contradictions go
to the root of the prosecution case and should have been
carefully considered by the Ld. Trial Court before framing
charges. The failure to do so renders the impugned order
perverse and unsustainable.
m. It is further averred that there is no allegation or evidence
that the documents (Surrender Deed, Affidavit, Possession
Letter, and Receipt) were “false documents” as defined
under Section 464 IPC. The documents were executed by
the Revisionist himself, acknowledging the receipt of
consideration and transfer of possession.
n. It is further averred that in the present case, no
independent expert evidence has been produced by theCR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.5 of 15
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:33
+0530
prosecution to even prima facie suggest that the
documents are forged or fabricated. The Trial Court has
erroneously framed charges under Sections 468 and 471
IPC without any material to substantiate the allegation of
forgery.
o. It is further averred that the Receipt dated 13.12.2011
clearly reflects that ₹5 lakhs were paid by the complainant
as an advance and the balance amount was to be paid only
upon the complainant obtaining possession and keys of the
shop. It is an admitted fact that on 31.01.2012, the
possession of the shop was duly handed over to the
complainant, along with the physical keys, thus fulfilling
the obligations under the transaction.
p. It is further averred that all documents relating to the title
and rights of the revisionist – including the General Power
of Attorney executed by Sh. Narinder Kumar Bhatia,
Agreement to Sell, Payment Receipts, and Will were duly
provided to the complainant. The Surrender Deed and
Possession Letter were executed transparently to formalize
the transfer of possession, not ownership. Therefore, there
is no act or omission amounting to forgery or fraud.
q. It is further averred that the complainant in collusion with
one Shri Sanjeev Kumar Bhatia, has deliberately
concealed material documents and facts to give a falseCR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.6 of 15
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:37
+0530
colour to the transaction, with an ulterior motive to extort
money from the accused as all the transactions were
between accused and Late Sh. Narender Kumar Bhatia and
after his demise they made a pre-planned conspiracy to
extort money from the accused.
r. It is further averred that the complainant’s mala fide
intentions are further evident from the fact that after
framing the accused in a false and fabricated case, they
sought to extort money from him under threat of continued
harassment. Upon refusal to succumb to their demands
they misused the criminal process to secure the arrest and
incarceration of the revisionist.
s. It is further averred that there is no material on record nor
testimonial-to prima facie establish that the revisionist
forged any document or used any forged document
dishonestly or fraudulently. The basic ingredients required
to constitute offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are
completely missing.
t. It is further averred that the present case essentially
involves a dispute over property rights, which is inherently
civil in nature and is already the subject matter of a civil
suit instituted by Mr. Sanjeev Bhatia. The initiation of
criminal proceedings for what is essentially a civil dispute
amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.7 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:41
+0530
u. It is further averred that the complainant filed the present
complaint against the revisionist more than one year after
the execution of the transaction and after enjoying
uninterrupted possession and rights over the property.
Throughout this period, the complainant carried out his
business activities without any protest or grievance. The
belated filing of the complaint clearly points to an ulterior
motive and is not a bona fide action. It appears that, acting
in collusion with one Shri Sanjeev Kumar Bhatia, the
complainant has falsely implicated the revisionist with the
sole intention of converting a purely civil dispute into a
criminal case, thereby attempting to extort money through
undue pressure and harassment.
v. It is further averred that even after the filing of the
complaint on 11.11.2013, the First Information Report
(FIR) was registered after an additional delay of more than
one year, on 12.12.2014. This unexplained and inordinate
delay in registration of the FIR further reinforces the
concocted and motivated nature of the complaint. The
record shows that during the proceedings for securing bail,
the complainant succeeded in coercing and extorting an
amount of ₹10 lakhs from the revisionist under the threat
of continued prosecution and harassment.
2. It is further averred that revisionist has not preferred any
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.8 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:46
+0530
other similar revision petition against the impugned order before
any other court of law.
3. It is further prayed that the revision petition be allowed
and order dated 20.12.2024 be set aside.
4. Ld. counsel for revisionist has relied upon the following
judgments:
i. Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
ii. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751
iii. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168
iv. G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of UP (2000) 2 SCC 636
v. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736
vi. Randheer Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2021 SCC Online
SC 942vii. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad Vs. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 694
viii. MedMeme LLC Vs. iHorse BPO Solutions (P) Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC
374ix. Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors.
(2007) 12 SCC 1x. Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293
xi. Sunil Kapoor Vs. State (2009) (4) SCC 2995
xii. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd & Other. (AIR
2006 SC 2780)xiii. M/s Zandu Pharmaticuals Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful
Haque & Anr. 2005 (3) SCC 1583xiv. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604)
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.9 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:51
+0530
xv. Sat Pal Vs. State 22 (1982) DLT (SN) 5xvi. State Vs. Narayan AIR 1992 SC 2004
xvii. Karnel Singh Vs. State 1995 SCC (Cr) 977
5. Respondents chose not to file reply but straightforward
addressed arguments. They vehemently opposed the present
revision petition and submitted that it is filed merely to delay the
proceedings. It is further submitted that prima facie all the
allegations are present in the case in hand to frame charge against
revisionist. It is further submitted that all the grounds taken by
the revisionist are in fact his defence which cannot be looked into
at the stage of framing of charge. It is further submitted that
judgments/citations relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist
are not applicable to case in hand as the facts and circumstances
of said cases are different from the present case. It is prayed that
the revision petition be dismissed with cost.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused
the record and relied upon citation carefully.
7. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to go through
the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 which is reproduced as
under:-
“10 Cr. Case 7378/2017
STATE Vs. KARAM CHAND PUSHYE @ K.C.
PUSHE
FIR No.536/2014
PS Sadar Bazar20.12.2024
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.10 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:17:54
+0530
Present : Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Rishav Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused
alongwith accused.
Arguments heard on the point of charge.
The case file has been perused carefully.
On the basis of the material on record, a prima facie
case for offences punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC is
made out against the accused. Accordingly, charge
for the offence U/s 420/468/471 IPC has been
framed separately against accused to which he did
not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Issue notice to complainant Mohd. Saleem
for NDOH.
Put up for PE on 24.02.2025.
-sd-
(GAURAV GOYAL)
JMFC-06(C)/THC/Delhi/20.12.2024″
8. It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge, the
Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not
required to marshal the evidence and record a finding that the
materials collected by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or
not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a
prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge
has to be framed.
9. Perusal of TCR reveals that as per allegations of
complainant, in the year 2011, revisionist represented himself to
be the owner of Ground Floor of Shop bearing No. 485, Bartan
Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi to the complainant and assured him
that the said property is free from all sort of encumbrances and
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.11 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.05.26
17:18:01
+0530
thereafter, induced him to purchase the same. It is further alleged
that revisionist forged surrendered deed, affidavit and possession
letter dated 31.01.2012 and receipt dated 23.12.2011 to transfer
aforesaid shop to the complainant and took Rs.27,00,000/- from
the complainant and thereby wrongfully gained the said amount
and caused wrongful loss to the complainant. It is further alleged
that complainant was surprised to received legal notice from Sh.
Sanjeev Bhatia as well as Civil Court regarding suit for
possession of aforesaid shop filed against the complainant. It is
further alleged that revisionist herein failed to clarify the
situation despite being visited by the complainant several times.
Accordingly, as per allegations, complainant was induced by the
revisionist to purchase the aforesaid shop and in pursuance of
said inducement, complainant purchased aforesaid shop from the
revisionist for an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- after executing
certain documents. However, later on, he came to know that
revisionist was not having any right, title or interest to transfer
the property in question to the complainant. Therefore, prime
facie, offence under Section 420/468/471 IPC is made out against
the revisionist herein. It is noted that all the grounds taken by the
revisionist in the present revision petition are subject matter of
trial/his defence which cannot be looked into at the stage of
charge. Furthermore, Trial Court has correctly framed the charge
under Section 420/468/471 IPC vide impugned order which
requires no interference by this Court in the revisional
jurisdiction.
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.12 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:18:04
+0530
10. Coming now to the case law, while discussing the power
of the revisionist court, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 107,
it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
“3. …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.
This Court in Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of
West Bengal, 2000 CriLJ 746 has held that there is no
legal requirement for the trial court to write a
reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.”
11. Also, the present court have to keep in mind that revisional
jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases
where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest
error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. In 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 theCR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.13 of 15
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:18:08
+0530
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.”
12. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh 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
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.”
13. Applying the aforesaid Principle of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as law as discussed in
CR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.14 of 15
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:18:12
+0530
preceding paragaraphs, it is crystal clear that Ld. Trial Court has
rightly framed charges against revisionist under Section
420/468/471 IPC. It cannot be said at this stage that conclusion
arrived by the Ld. Trial Court is unreasonable and unjustified,
calling for interference by the present Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the
impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the
revision petition is dismissed.
14. Accordingly, Revision Petition as well as application
seeking stay are hereby disposed off as dismissed.
15. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the
merits of the case. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the
copy of this order.
16. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Copy of order be given dasti to the revisionist. Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.26
17:18:17
+0530Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
on 26th day of May, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiCR No.287/2025 Karam Chand Pushye Vs. State & Anr. Page No.15 of 15
