Delhi District Court
M/S Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd vs Rajinish Malik on 9 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 749/2024
PS- Kalkaji
U/Sec. 156(3) CrPC
In the matter of :-
M/s SRODEEP INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
SAJD HUSSAIN
AT R-23, LGF-8
NEHRU ENCLAVE, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019
...APPELLANT
Versus.
1. RAJNISH MALIK
2. ANKUR MALIK
S/o RAJNISH MÃ…LIK
3. ANKIT MALIK
S/o RAJNISH MALIK
4. DEEPIKA MALIK
W/o MR. ANKUR MALIK
5. ANKIT MALIK
W/o ANKIT MALIK
ALL RESIDENTS OF:
Q-36, OLD DOUBLE STORY LAJPAT NAGAR IV
NEW DELHI-110024
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
C-32 AND C-33, IIND FLOOR,
AMAR COLONY, ND-24.
.... RESPONDENTS
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.1 of 29
Date of Institution : 09.12.2024
Date of Arguments : 01.04.2026
Date of Order : 09.04.2026
Decision : Dismissed.
Impugned Order Stands
Upheld.
ORDER
1. Revisionist namely M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. through its
authorized representative Sajid Hussain has filed present revision
petition, thereby challenging order dated 27.08.2024, passed by Ld.
Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 3636/2024 titled as ” M/s Srodeep
Infra Developers Ltd. vs. Rajnish Malik”, vide which Ld. Trial Court
had dismissed the application of revisionist u/sec. 156 (3) CrPC.
2. The aforesaid revision petition was dismissed for non prosecution and
non appearance on 12.08.2025 and subsequently miscellaneous criminal
no.1505/2025 PS Kalkaji was filed on behalf of revisionist and upon
hearing the parties the aforesaid revision petition was restored to its
original number. After hearing the parties, I hereby disposed of the
aforesaid miscellaneous no.1505/2025 PS Kalkaji with the present
revision petition.
3. Revisionist herein was complainant and respondents herein were
proposed accused persons before Ld. Trial Court. In my subsequent
paragraphs, parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with
which they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in order to avoid
confusion.
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.2 of 29
4. Trial Court record reveal that complainant had filed an application
u/sec. 156(3) CrPC against accused persons, praying for registration of
FIR before Ld. Trial Court. The contents of the complaint of the
complainant in complaint are mentioned below, in brief :-
” That the complainant is a company incorporated on 15.04.1999 with
the ROC, Delhi. The present complaint is being filed by the authorized
representative duly authorized vide resolution dated 02.05.2024 against
the accused persons for the offences committed by them. The above-
accused no.1 approached Mr. Arun Gupta, Managing Director of the
complainant company in the first week of October 2022 representing
himself to be an LIC agent. He further represented that he needed to
carry out some repair/renovation work in the Lajpat Nagar area as he
claimed to be a resident of Lajpat Nagar-IV and his area of business
was also in Lajpat Nagar. He also claimed that he is a frequent visitor to
Nehru Place in connection with his Insurance Business, which is at a
walking distance from Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi. That after
inquiries about the paint material and rates thereof, accused no. l placed
an oral order for the supply of paint material and issued a cheque for the
sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- on 05.10.2022 which was duly encashed. That
after receipt of the above-mentioned amount in the accounts of the
Company, the paint material was supplied by the complainant company
vide various invoices from 08.10.2022 to 25.10.2022 and the said
material got collected by the accused no.1 through his representative
who had been introduced by him to the employee of the complainant.
The accused no.1 required further material from the company and made
another payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the month end of October 2022,
against which also the paint material as required was supplied to the
accused no.1 by the complainant company vide various invoices from
October 2022 to 30.11.2022 and as such the total material supplied by
the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 17,46,725/-. Thus, a balance
amount of Rsa. 1,46,725 – remained outstanding against the accused
no.1 towards the material purchased by him from the complainant.
During the abovementioned transaction between accused no.1 and the
complainant, the accused no.1 enquired about the properties from Mr.CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.3 of 29
Arun Gupta through one, Mr. Yashpal, a real estate agent. The said Mr.
Yashpal claimed to be known to the accused no.1 for the past 15 years
and he had already shown some of the properties to the accused no.1,
out of which one property i.e. L-28, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi
is the property belonging to the complainant. The accused no.1
informed said Mr. Yashpal that Mr. Arun Gupta is known to him as he
is purchasing paint material from him and he expressed his desire to
purchase the said property bearing no. L-28, Ground Floor, Kalkaji,
New Delhi and wanted to show the same to his family members before
finalizing the deal. After having visited the abovesaid property with his
family members, the accused no.1 along with other accused persons
wanted to negotiate the deal with Mr. Arun Gupta, who had already
quoted the price of the property, L-28, GF, Kalkaji, New Delhi, at Rs.
2,50,00,000/-. That on verbal discussion accused no. 1 agreed to
purchase the said Ground Floor of the abovesaid property on the
condition that once the loan applied by accused no.2 is sanctioned by
the bank, the necessary documents would be executed accordingly and
the amount against the purchase of property will be paid then only. The
accused persons also wanted to buy the Third Floor with the terrace of
the property bearing no. L-28, Kalkaji for accused no.2, stating that
they have a Teh Bazaari shop in Lajpat Nagar, which they had put on
sale and valued by them at Rs.1,80,00,000/-. On verbal negotiations,
the total price of both the floors i.e. Ground Floor and Third Floor with
terrace were quoted at Rs. 4,15,00,000/- The accused persons suggested
that if the amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-, could be adjusted against the
Teh Bazaari shop, they were agreed to transfer the shop in the name of
the complainant company and the balance amount of Rs. 2,35,00,000/-
would be paid against both the properties after the approval and
sanction of bank loan. That since the accused persons failed to get the
loan sanctioned, they informed the abovesaid real estate agent namely,
Mr. Yashpal and requested him to get the loan sanctioned through Mr.
Deepak Gupta, Advocate and brother of Mr. Arun Gupta, if he agrees.
The accused no.1 along with the two sons (Accused no.2 & no.3)
approached Mr. Deepak Gupta and requested him to facilitate the
transaction of the abovesaid property and do the needful in connection
therewith the abovesaid transaction including the sanction of the loan
from the banks. That Mr. Deepak Gupta agreed to provide his legal
services at his legal fee of Rs. 3,50,000/- for which the abovementionedCR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.4 of 29
accused persons agreed and accordingly Mr. Deepak Gupta referred the
accused persons to DSA, Mr. Amit Jain. The accused persons under a
deep-rooted criminal conspiracy furnished the documents to the banks
through the DA as well as through Mr. Deepak Gupta for sanction of
the loan. The accused persons revealed to Mr. Deepak Gupta that they
had applied for a loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- against only one property i.e.
L-28, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi for which the accused persons
wanted an agreement to sell of the said property for approval of the
loan. Mr. Deepak Gupta informed the accused persons that the
agreement to sell can only be executed on the receipt of 20% of the
total sale consideration of the property i.e. approx. 45,00,000/-. The
accused persons expressed their inability to pay the abovesaid advance
amount as their loan had once been rejected by the bank hence they
wanted an unsigned copy of the agreement to sell for approval of the
loan and once the loan is approved then only the advance/margin
money of 20% of the total sale consideration would be paid and the
agreement to sell be signed and executed. The Bajaj Housing Finance
Limited (BHFL) vide its email dated 26.11.2022 informed the accused
persons that:
“Dear Mr. Malik,
This is to inform you that your loan has been sanctioned for 180 Lacs subject
to condition that sale deed will be executed for Rs.2.25Cr.
Below Sanction conditions to be followed-(Account must be 1yr older) Seller
A/C cheque copy with vintage proof of Account. Repayment should be taken
from salary Account SCB Bank A/C No -52211855991
Agreement to sell duly signed by both parties Loan Tenure will be 240
Months.
Regards,
Lovish Guliani
Manager- Home Loans
BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
9999887432″
On receipt of the abovesaid email, the accused persons refused to
purchase the said Ground Floor at Rs.2.25 Cr from the complainant
company and since nothing had been paid in advance by the accused
persons to the complainant and accordingly the said oral deal was
cancelled in the presence of the said real estate agent, Mr. Yashpal. Mr.
Arun Gupta required the accused no.1 to make payment of the balance
amount of Rs.1,46,725/- against the purchase of paint material from the
complainant. However, the accused no.1 on one pretext or another
avoided the abovesaid payment to the complainant which prima facie
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.5 of 29
shows that he had dishonest intentions from the very beginning
knowing fully well that he will not make the payment of the balance
amount against the purchase of paint material from the company.
Having left with no option, the complainant issued a legal demand
notice on 13.12.2022 calling upon the accused no.1 to make payment of
Rs. 1,46,725 along with interest @18% p.a. within 15 days from the
receipt thereof, failing which to face civil and criminal proceedings.
That the said legal demand notice was sent through speed post
13.12.2022 and was duly received by the accused no.1 on 15.12.2022.
Despite receipt of the aforementioned legal notice, the accused no.1 did
not comply with the requisition of the said legal notice nor denied the
contents of the said legal notice which thus amounts to admission of
the contents of the legal notice. Instead, accused no.1 got legal notice
issued to the company and its directors vide notice dated 29.12.2022 on
false and frivolous allegations which are false even to the knowledge of
the accused persons, concocting the story of a deal of Rs.1.6Cr of both
the properties i.e. L-28, Ground and Third floor with terrace, Kalkaji,
New Delhi, against which a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- has stated to be paid
as an advance payment to the company. The contents of the said legal
notice are not only false but contrary to the records of BHFL and Kotak
Bank Ltd. After receipt of the above said legal notice, the complainant
company filed a detailed complaint to the SHO, PS, Kalkaji, New Delhi
on 05.01.2023 against the accused persons which was duly received at
PS, Kalkaji, vide PF no. 25 dated 05.01.2023. The reminders of the
complaint were also sent to the DCP on 18.05.2023 to take appropriate
actions via email requesting passing directions to the concerned officers
for registration of FIR and taking strict actions against the accused
persons but no action has been taken so far against the accused persons.
The complainant was left with no option but to approach the court of
Ld. MM through a criminal complaint w/s 200 r.w. S.156(3) Cr.P.C
against the accused persons, which is pending before the Ld. Magistrate
being complaint no. 937/2023 titled as Srodeep Infra Developers
Limited V. Rajnish Malik & ors. The complainant in addition to
pursuing its complaint against the accused persons has also filed a civil
suit on 06.03.2023 being CS SCJ 289/2023 titled as M/s Srodeep Infra
Developers Limited V. Rajnish Malik against the accused no.1 for
recovery of Rs. 1,46,725l- which is pending before the Ld. Court of Sh.
Umesh Kumar, CJ, SE, Saket, New Delhi. The accused no.1 was well
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.6 of 29
aware of the factum of placing the orders for supply of the paint
material and invoices raised by the complainant for the total sum of Rs.
17,46,725/- upon the accused no.1 against the material supplied
however, the accused no.1 has fraudulently concealed all the material
facts and fraudulently got the FIR no. 0491/2023 registered u/s
420/406/34 IPC at PS- Kalkaji, New Delhi, on 20.11.2023 against the
complainant company, M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Limited and its
directors namely, Sh. Arun Gupta, Sh. Deepak Gupta and Smt. Madhvi
Gupta. During the course of the investigation in the above-mentioned
FIR, all the directors cooperated and joined with the investigation and
furnished all the relevant material required by the IO for the purpose of
investigation. Even after having complied with the conditions of
Section 41A Cr.P.C as well as Section 91 of Cr.P.C and having
supplied all the required documents such as the GST return of the
company as well as statement of accounts etc to facilitate the process of
investigation vide reply dated 04.04.2024, 06.04.2024 & 27.04.2024,
the 1O had been threatening to arrest the directors of the complainant
company at the behest of the accused no.1. All the directors being law-
abiding and respectable citizens applied for their anticipatory bail in the
court of District & Session Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi, as they
were being threatened by the accused no.1, 2 & 3 through the 1O either
to make payment of Rs.16,00,000/- or go to jail. During the course of
hearing in the anticipatory bail applications filed by the directors of the
complainant company on 28.02.2024, it was revealed by the IO that he
had not even verified the documents in question, which otherwise
should have been done before the registration of FIR, which as per the
contents of the FIR are contrary to the records as he has mentioned in
the said FIR that the contents of the complaint and inquiry conducted
an offence u/s 420/406/34 IPC was made out and the FIR was
registered after the approval of the senior officers. The Hon’ble Court
was pleased to grant the interim protection to the directors and the
matter was adjourned and is still pending consideration before the
concerned court. During the course of hearing in the abovesaid bail
applications, the IO of the case has collected certain documents from
the Kotak Mahindra Bank and BHFL, which shockingly reveal a deep-
rooted criminal conspiracy by the above-named accused persons against
the company and its directors by making false allegations in the
abovesaid FIR claiming a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- allegedly paid by them
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.7 of 29
as 10% of the total sale consideration Rs.1,60,00,000/- of both the flats
of the abovesaid property, which are totally contrary to the contents of
the said documents. Had the accused persons disclosed the true facts to
the police officials, the abovesaid FIR would not have been registered
against the company and its directors and valuable time of the police
and the Courts would have been saved. It is clear from the documents
supplied to Mr. Deepak Gupta by the IO on 07.05.2024, in response to
his request dated 03.05.2024 that the accused persons have never
applied for a loan against 2 flats as has been alleged in the FIR and the
story of total sale consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/- against both the
properties are totally false and fabricated which amounts to making a
false document and punishable under section 467 of the IPC. The
accused persons had dishonest intention from the very beginning as the
accused no.1 first placed an order for supply of paint material upon the
company on the misrepresentation that the payment of the entire
material supplied would be made in due course and induced the director
of the company namely, Mr. Arun Gupta to part with the paint material
to the accused no.1 and further induced the company to negotiate a deal
for purchase of Ground Floor of property bearing no. L-28, Kalkaji,
New Delhi and further in conspiracy with each other induced Mr.
Deepak Gupta, Advocate to provide his legal services on the assurance
that a legal fee of Rs.3,50,000/- would be paid which was never paid by
the accused persons even after availing the professional legal services
and further induced and misrepresented to the police officials to register
the abovesaid FIR by concealment of material fact that they had not
applied for sanction of the loan for 2 properties and the value of the
properties were more than Rs.4,00,00,000/- and not Rs.1,60,00,000/- as
claimed by the accused persons and fraudulently not disclosed to the
police that the oral deal between the accused persons was for 1 flat i.e.
the ground floor at Rs. 2,25,00,000/- and not for 2 floors and the said
oral deal was cancelled and as such the contents of the FIR are false and
fabricated being contrary to the records and documents submitted by
the accused persons for availing the loan from the bank/finance
company. Had the accused persons not induced pursuant to the
dishonest intention, the company through its directors would not have
parted with the paint material to the accused no.1 and Mr. Deepak
Gupta, Advocate would not have rendered his legal services and the
police officials also would not have registered the FIR at all and put the
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.8 of 29
criminal machinery into motion against the company and its directors
and would not have to suffer harassment, humiliation and defamation
and mental agony on account of the same. The complainant company,
its directors, Mr. Deepak Gupta and Police officials have thus been
cheated and defrauded by the accused persons who have caused
wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. The
accused no.1 in furtherance of his criminal intent to extort money from
the company and its directors has yet again made a false statement in
the Hon’ble Court on 03.04.2024 to the effect that he had entered into
an agreement to sell with the company on 27.10.2022 which is patently
false as the same can be verified from Stock Holding Corporation as to
who had purchased the stamp paper for the said agreement and when
the same was purchased. The accused no.1, 2 & 3 have openly
threatened the directors of the company on multiple occasions either to
agree and make payment of Rs.16,00,000/- or go to jail and have orally
made life-threatening remarks to the directors. The accused persons
under criminal conspiracy have misled not only police officials but also
the Hon’ble Courts by giving false and fabricated documents against the
company and its directors with intention to extort money from the
complainant and its directors under a threat of sending them to jail and
thus have committed offences punishable under section
120B/384/506/467/468/471/420/191/192/195/196/199
/200/203/209/211 20. That the contents of the complaint have disclosed
cognizable offences, which have been committed by accused persons
within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this Hon’ble Court
has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and punish the
accused persons. That the complainant has got no other alternative or
efficacious remedy except to seek the intervention of this Hon’ble
Court, by way of this complaint to get justice.”
5. Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 called the Action Taken
Report after passing the order dated 19.09.2024 by the Revisional
Court. In response to the said order, status report was filed on
05.07.2024.
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.9 of 29
6. Thereafter, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.08.2024, after
considering the contents of application u/sec. 156(3) CrPC and the said
action taken report, dismissed the application of complainant and the
complainant has been granted opportunity to lead pre-summoning
evidence u/sec. 200 CrPC.
GROUNDS OF REVISION
7. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 27.08.2024,
revisionist/ complainant has preferred the present revision petition, on
the grounds that :-
A. That admittedly the Ld. Trial court while refereeing to the judgment of
Hon’ ble Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Skippers Beverages Pvt. Ltd
vs. State 92 2001) DLT 217 has acted judiciously but has erred while
appraisal of the material evidence on record and further the true facts and
circumstances of the instant case. That the Petitioner has averred in his
Complaint that the Respondent no. 1 has caused fear of injury and thereby
dishonestly caused the Petitioner to deliver Rs. 16,00,000/- to the Respondent
no. 1 by filling the false, concocted, frivolous and vexatious Complaint on
which FIR no. 0491 dated 20.11.2023 was registered. That registered forged
the false agreement to sell for both the properties for 1,60,00,000/- whÃch was
conveyed to the Petitioner named above,the relevant documents copy of
which was never supplied to the Petitioner Directors, the alleged accused
persons made therein.
That the Id. Trial Court erred in not summoning the alleged forged
documents fraudulently and dishonestly forged by the kespondents above
named in conspiracy with each other. That without relevant material evidence
on record the concerned authorities lodged the FIR no. 0491dated 20.11.2023
against the Petitioner directors further, no advance payment acknowledgment
was ever relied upon by the Respondents against the alleged Agreement to
sell for Rupees 16. 00. 000/, which ex facie points at the credibility of the
FIR lodged by the P.S Kalkaji. That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in appraisalCR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.10 of 29
of the material facts on record on the basis of which the respondents above
named are liable to be indicted for commission of cognizable offences
committed under section herein after mentioned:-
I. SECTION 383IPC: -Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any
injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the
person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable
security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits “extortion”.
That the Respondents above named after lodging of the FIR no. 0491 dated
20.11.2023 threatened the Petitioner to unjustly pay Rupees 16,00,000/-
without any liability on the Petitioner and caused the fear of malicious
prosecution to extort the above said money on the basis of forget agreement
to sell which has also not been supplied to the Petitioner by the Ioin the
above stated FIR. That further it was also not stated nowhere by the IO in the
status report dated 05.07.2024 that the veracity of the agreement to sell was
investigated by the authorities. That as per the alleged concocted story of the
Respondents agreement to sell was for Rupees 1.6 Crore and BHFL
sanctioning a conditional loan for more than the sales consideration for
Rupees 1.8 Crore shows the falsehood of the above said FIR which was
lodged just to extort money unlawfully from the Petitioners above named.
SECTION 503IPC:- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
That the Respondents in order to commit extortion committed the offence of
criminal intimidation on the Petitioner Directors above named after the filling
of the FIR no. 0491 dated 20.11.2023 and therefore committed the said
offence, which the Ld. Trial Court erred to take note of and henceforth has
further erred in rejecting the Bona-fide application moved by the Petitioner
above named.
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.11 of 29
II. SECTION 467 IPC:- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports
to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or
to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver
any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document
purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging payment of
money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of ly movable property
or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
That the Contents of the FIR disclose that the Respondents above named
have forged the said agreement to sell which can be converted into a valuable
security and that further used the said document to get the above stated
concocted FIR lodged against the Petitioner Directors. That it is the humble
submission of the Petitioner above named that no agreement to sell was
entered into by the Petitioner with the respondents for two properties for a
consideration amount of Rs. 1,60, 000/-. That the loan sanction male send to
Respondents Ex-facie shows the falsehood of the FIR lodged by the
Respondents. That the conditional loan sanction amount exceeds the sales
consideration, which was sanctioned was for Rs. 1,80,000/-on the basis of
unsigned Agreement to sell supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondents.
IV. SECTION-468 IPC:-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record’ forged shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
That the Respondents above named in order to commit cheating forged the
said agreement to sell which formed the basis of the above stated concocted
FIR to cause wrongful loss to the Petitioner and wrongful gain themselves.
Thus committing offence under the above stated Section.
V. SECTION-471 IPC: -Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.12 of 29
document or electronic record’ forged shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
That the Respondents in order to cause wrongful loss to the Petitioner and to
further cause harm to the interest of the Petitioner used the forged agreement
to sell, which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, to get the
above stated concocted FIR lodged thus committing the offence under the
above stated section.
VI. SECTION 420 IPC: -Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
It is submitted that the Respondents above named after deceiving the
Investigating authorities got the Petitioner Directors indicted under the said
concocted and false FIR no. 0491 dated 20.11.2023 and further induced the
Petitioner Directors fraudulently and dishonestly to release the amount of
Rupees 16. 00, 000/- which was not due to the them to cause wrongful loss to
the Petitioner Directors and wrongful gain to the themselves. That the Ld.
Trial court had further erred in passing the impugned order dated
27.08.2024by dismissing the application under section 156(3) filed by the
Petitioner on the erroneous grounds stated therein.
V. SECTION 211 IPC:- Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any
person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against
that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence,
knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge
against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if
such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence
punishable with death, ‘ [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven
years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.13 of 29
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
That the Respondent lastly has also committed the offence of maliciously
prosecuting the Petitioners by initiating the Criminal procedure in motion by
fraudulently and mischievously representing a concocted story to the
investigating authorities and further caused the FIRno. 0491 dated
20.11.2023 lodged.
B. That the Ld. Trial Court further erred qua considering the confession
of the Respondent no. 1 that no sales consideration was given to the
Petitioner with respect to the above said two properties and the status report
dated 05.072024 disclosed that the conditional loan was sanctioned for the
amount of Rs. 1.80 crore (Provided the sales consideration should be of
Rs.2.25 crore). That the contrary assertions were made by the Respondent
No. 1 in false and concocted FIR dated 20.11.2023 that the Petitioner agreed
to sell the said property for a sales consideration of Rs. 1.60 Crore. That the
above stated facts ex facie shows the false and concocted vicious plot of the
Respondents to prejudice the Petitioner Directors. That the Ld. Trial Court
also erred qua the bona-fide allegations leveled by the Petitioner Directors
above named that no advance payment acknowledgement was issued by the
Respondents above named. That the concerned IO in the status report dated
05.07.2024 has expressly stated that they were still unearthing through
investigation the reasons of payments to the Petitioner which is pivotal for
the proper adjudication of the Complaint filed by the Petitioner in the Ld.
Trial Court, but the Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 rejected the
application of the Petitioner Directors under section 156(3).
C. That further the Respondents in addition to filling the supra false and
concocted Police complaint after forging the valuable security, against the
Petitioner directors to extort money, also threatened them for their life and
limb in order to commit extortion. That the Ld. Trial Court has overlooked
that the offence of extortion and forgery committed by the Respondents are
cognizable in nature and in which case the Police authorities are duty bound
to lodge an FIR. That further the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of Lalita
Kumari vs. State of U.P 2013in which the apex court has made it duty bound
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.14 of 29
for the police officials to register an FIR on receiving a cognizable offence.
That the Petitioner prayed to the Ld. Trial Court for the further investigation
and direct to lodge an FIR as a result of noncooperation of investigation
authorities, but the Ld. Trial Court erred in considering the same which
constrained the Petitioner Directors above named to file the instant revision.
D. That further the Ld. Trial court has further erred in placing reliance
upon the judgment Sukhwasi vs. State of UP2007 that:
“It has been observed that the objective of the Police investigation is
collection of evidence regarding the offence. Therefore, police investigation
is necessary only in those cases where the evidence is neither in the
possession of the Complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on
being summoned at the instance of the complainant or where the nature of the
evidence is technical.”
Further, the Ld. Trial Court also erroneously placed reliance upon the
judgment Vikrant Kapoor vs. State and Anr. 2012,” and stated that:
“It has been observed in the case where the complainant is in possession of
evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass an order u/s
156(3).”
That in the instant case the Petitioner is not in possession of all the relevant
documents which form the basis of his complaint and the same have been
concealed by the Respondents. Further the bank witnesses which are pivotal
for the proper adjudication of the case of the Petitioner were never summon
qua the complaint filed by the Petitioner which are pivotal and who are
supposed to adduce the testimony regarding the loan account of the
Respondents and further to substantiate the case of the Petitioner Company
with respect to conditional loan sanctioned to the Respondents which is
contrary to the averments made bythem in their false and fabricated
complaint on the basis of which the FIR no. 0491 dated 20.11.2023 was
lodged.
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.15 of 29
E. That the Ld. Inferior court has further erred in appraisal of the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case. That the application U/S 156(3) filed by
the Petitioner is duly supported by a sworn affidavit and in such
circumstances the Hon’ble Apex court has ruled out that an FIR should be
lodged if the Complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. That
further the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State
of Gujarat 2015) 6 SCC 439″ has vehemently ruled out that, the directions
under section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the
magistrate. That further it is ex facie visible from the impugned order dated
27.08.2024 that the Ld. Trial court has erred while applying Judicial mind
and has over looked the facts that the Petitioner Directors were threatened for
their life and limb after the false and concocted Complaint was filed
on26.02.2023 on fabricated documents which has not been recovered yet
from the Respondents,to extort monies from the Petitioner. That the Ld.
Inferior Court has also erred in PARA 15 of the impugned order that the
Petitioner has not mentioned the Date, Place and Time of the incidence that
the Petitioner has annexed the FIR no. 0491 dated 20.11.2023 which states
the date, time and place when the FIR was lodged and at the same place the
Petitioner Directors were threatened to cause injury to their life and limb and
further also threatened to go to jail or give the money which amounts to the
offence U/S 120 B Read with Sections 383,384, 503, 506, 467, 468, 471, 420
and 211. Further the Respondents above named have further committed the
offence from section 191 to 200 which the Ld. Trial Court has erred to
observe by stating the absence of offence under the said sections. That the
Respondents has concealed the true facts and circumstances of the case and
that the Respondents have positive knowledge of the said facts that the said
FIR was lodged on false and fabricated documents and testimonies, thus
making the Respondents further liable under the 191 to 200 IPC. That the
relevant portion of the Apex Court Judgment in “Ramdev Food Products (P)
Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439″ is reproduced herein forth for the
convenience of this Hon’ble Court:-
“2.1. The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after
application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take
cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process andCR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.16 of 29
finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision
is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information
available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to
straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued.”
F. Further the Hon’ble Trial Court has also erred in appraisal of the fact that
the Petitioner Directors have not pleaded the offences without the application
of Mind. That the Ld. Trial court has further without considering all the
above facts have erroneously passed the said impugned order. That the
Petitioner’s case is a fit case for investigation and registration of FIR as the
Complaint of the Petitioner Prima Facie discloses commission of a
cognizable offence. That further the case of the Petitioner squarely comes
under the purview of the Apex Court landmark judgment in “LalitaKumari
vs. Govt. of U.P. 2013″ which states that if the complaint discloses the
commission of cognizable offence the Police Officer is duty bound to register
an FIR, further it is admitted fact that the powers of the Magistrate to order
investigation under section 156(3) is to be exercised judiciously but the Ld.
Trial Court over looked the prima facie case made out against the
Respondents and erred in rejecting the said application. That the Ld. Trial
court is duty bound to carry out justice and equity in the instant case and
rejecting the said application has caused prejudice to the rights and interest of
the Petitioner.
G. It is brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the Ld. Trial Court
has also erred in PARA 16 of the impugned order while stating that the
Complainant, Petitioner herein has not suffered any loss for which he is
alleging commission of the offence u/s 420 IPC. That the relevant provision
is reproduced herein forth for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court:-
“SECTION 420:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy
the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.17 of 29
That the legislative intent of the relevant provision is not limited to the
attestation of the signature but also extends to the documents which are
capable of being converted into a valuable security. That the forged
agreement to sell used by the Respondents to get the FIR registered to extort
the monies falls under the above said provision as the said document comes
under the purview of “anything which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security”.
That the Ld. Trial court has further listed the matter on 25.11.2024 for
Complainant evidence without sufficient material evidence on record which
will prejudice and cause grave injustice to the case of the Complainant and
will further bring inappropriate and unequitable actions against the
Petitioners above named.
H. Because dismissing the application without ordering an FIR disregards
the rights c the Petitioner as a victim of fraud. Ensuring that the Respondent
is proper investigated and prosecuted is crucial for the Petitioner to receive
justice a redress.
I. Because allowing such blatant misuse of legal processes by the
Respondent undermines public trust in the justice system. It is essential for
public policy that serious leins of audad cit are investigated by the police to
uphold the rule of law.
J. Because the learned Magistrate’s interpretation of Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. does not consider its intended purpose to facilitate the investigation
of serious crimes where the Petitioner cannot effectively gather evidence.
This section is crucial for cases like the present one where police intervention
is warranted.
K. Because a thorough police investigation and subsequent prosecution of
the Respondent would serve as a deterrent to others who might consider
engaging in similar fraudulent activities. It is vital to send a strong message
that such criminal behavior will not be tolerated.
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.18 of 29
L. Because the learned Magistrate should exercise judicial oversight to
ensure that allegations of serious criminal conduct are investigated by the
appropriate authorities. Judicial oversight in directing police investigations is
essential to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
M. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Petition or Appeal or any
proceedings against the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate either before this Hon’ble Court or before Hon’ ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, except the present Petition before this
Hon’ ble Court.
N. That the present Criminal Revision Petition is within the period of
limitation.
8. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, Ld. Counsel for complainant has
argued that the Ld. Trial Court has erred while passing order dated
27.08.2024 and a case is made out against the respondents on the
grounds of forging security on the basis of which respondent no. 1 got
FIR registered and tried to extort a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- from
petitioner company. It is argued that Ld. Trial Court has erred in
placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
M/s Skippers Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 92 (2001) DLT 217 , as the
power conferred under Section 153 (3) are to be exercised judiciously
and not mechanically. That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in appraisal of
the fact that the respondent no. 1 has confessed that he cancelled the
oral agreement to sell after he was asked to pay the advance money
which has been duly recorded by the Ld. Trial Court in para 9 of
impugned order dated 27.08.2024. As an admitted fact by respondent
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.19 of 29
no. 1 that no advance money to the tune of 20 % of whole sale
consideration was given against the property above mentioned, the
question arises is how and why did he made a police complaint for the
same advance money with the police station Kalkaji on which FIR
dated 20.11.2023 on false and fabricated facts. Further the petitioner
was put into fear and accusation and incarceration or else to give Rs.
16,00,000/- which was paid as the consideration amount for the paint
material duly supplied. It is argued that the matter was already sub-
judice even before the complaint on which FIR dated 20.11.2023 was
lodged by the respondent no. 1 and the same was in the positive
knowledge of the accused that a civil recovery suit bearing no. CS SCJ
289/2023 filed on 06.03.2023 as well as complaint case Ct 937/2023 is
pending adjudication before the Hon’ble concerned Civil Court.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
9. It has been argued on behalf of all the respondents that the present
Criminal Revision Petition, when examined in the context of the factual
matrix and legal substratum of the case, is devoid of merit,
misconceived in law, and constitutes an abuse of the process of this
Hon’ble Court. The revision has been instituted on frivolous and
untenable grounds with the oblique motive of exerting undue pressure
upon the Respondents, rather than addressing any genuine grievance
warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in revisional jurisdiction.
The petition fails to disclose any perversity, irregularity, or
jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings and is, therefore, liable
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.20 of 29
to be dismissed at the very threshold as a vexatious and baseless
litigation. That the present revision petition is not maintainable in law
and be dismissed with heavy cost and penalties as the Main Counsel
Advocate Deepak Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner company
who is simultaneously holds the position of Director in the said
company. It is a well-established ethical principle governing the legal
profession that an Advocate is precluded from appearing before any
court, tribunal, or authority for or against a body whether an
organization, institution, society, or corporation of which he is a part of
the executive or managerial framework. The bar against such
representation stems from the inherent conflict of interest and the
fiduciary entanglement that arises when an advocate is personally
connected with the entity through a role that vests him with oversight or
control of its general affairs. Moreover, when an advocate has a
pecuniary or managerial interest in the client, such dual capacity
undermines the independence of legal representation. In the absence of
appropriate disengagement from such conflicting roles and in light of
the professional impropriety that taints such an appearance, the present
revision petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable.
10. It has been further argued that the filing of Civil Suit No. CS SCJ
289/2023 by the Petitioner/Revisionist further fortifies and makes
abundantly evident that the Petitioner/Revisionist seeks the dispute
between the parties is purely civil in nature, and the initiation of such
civil proceedings clearly establishes that the underlying issues pertain to
civil rights and obligations, and not to any criminal offence. Despite
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.21 of 29
this, the Petitioner/Revisionist has deliberately and maliciously chosen
to initiate parallel criminal proceedings with the sole intent to harass,
pressurize, and humiliate the present Respondents and this conduct not
only reflects the malafide intention of the Petitioner/Revisionist but also
amounts to gross abuse of the process of law by converting a civil
dispute into a criminal prosecution, which is impermissible in law.
FINDINGS
11. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for complainant/
revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for the State and also carefully perused the
record.
12. Impugned order was passed by Ld. Trial Court on 27.08.2024. Present
revision petition was filed by the complainant/ revisionist on
09.12.2024 which means it was filed within limitation period.
13.The impugned order was not an interlocutory order. That order decided
the legal rights of the parties and therefore, present revision petition is
maintainable before this court.
14.Revisionist/ complainant by way of present revision petition has
claimed that facts of this case requires registration of an FIR. It is a
settled principle of law that while deciding application u/sec. 156(3)
CrPC, Ld. Magistrate is given discretion which he has to exercise after
proper application of mind. Further, Magistrate should not order
registration of FIR u/sec. 156(3) CrPC, without applying his mind, in a
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.22 of 29
mechanical manner. The powers u/sec. 156(3) CrPC have to be
exercised where allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond
reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary
for recovery of some articles or discovery of facts.
LAW PERTAINING TO SECTION 156(3) CR.P.C.
15. For deciding the aforesaid question, it is relevant to mention here the
relevant law governing adjudication of application U/s. 156 (3) CrPC.
Section 156 (3) CrPC reads as under :-
“156. Police officer’s power to investigate
cognizable case:-
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may,
without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any
cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction
over the local area within the limits of such station
would have power to inquire into to try under the
provisions of Chapter XIII.
Xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190
may order such an investigation as above-
mentioned.”
16. Section 156 (3) CrPC provides that a check by the Magistrate on the
police performing its duty under Chapter 12 of CrPC, in cases where
the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty, investigating
the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction
to the police to do the investigation properly and can monitor the same.
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.23 of 29
Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as Dilawar Singh
vs. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641.
17. In the case titled as Sukwasi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008 Crl. LJ
472], it has been held that ;
“Application under Section 156 (3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 are now coming in
torrents. Provisions under Section 156 (3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be used
sparingly. They should not be used unless there is
something unusual or extra ordinary like
miscarriage of justice, which warrants a direction
the police to register a case. Such applications
should not be allowed because the law provides
them with an alternative remedy of filing a
complaint, therefore, recourse should not
normally be permitted for availing the provisions
of section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. The reference is, therefore, answered in the
manner that it is not incumbent upon a Magistrate
to allow an application under Section 156 (3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and there
is no such legal mandate. He may or may not
allow the application in his discretion.”
18. In the case titled as Ravindra Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
& Anr. [2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 403], it has been held that ;
“4. Section 156 (3) empowers the Magistrate to
refer and direct the police to investigate the
cognizable offence. It is however not necessary toCR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.24 of 29
refer every complaint filed under Section 200 to the
police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of
CrPC.
Remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the
word ‘may’. The Magistrate is required to exercise
his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is
satisfied that the information reveals commission of
cognizable offence/ 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. The complainant, as a matter of right, cannot
insist that the complaint case filed by him/her
should be directed in every eventuality to the police
for investigation.”
19. Here, I must mention here that ratio of a case is facts specific i.e. ratio
of a case has to be read as per facts of particular case. Even a change of
a single fact can make difference to the ratio of a case and on the basis
of spirit of this precedent, provisions of the specific act are to be
considered with features of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon case law titled as Padma Sundra Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
2002 (3) SCC 533 by Hon’ble Apex Court.
20. Ld. Trial Court has referred to the judgment of M/s. Skipper Beverages
Pet. Ltd. Vs. State [2002 Crl. LJ NOC 333 (Delhi)], wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has made following observations :-
“Section 156 empower Magistrate to direct police
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.25 of 29
to register case and initiate investigation, but his
power has to be exercised judiciously and not in
mechanical manner.”
21. In view of the aforesaid case laws, the issue which arises for
adjudication is, whether Ld. Trial Court has correctly exercised its
judicial discretion, while rejecting application of complainant u/sec.
156 (3) CrPC ?
22.In the present matter, a bare perusal of impugned order reveals that it
was passed by Ld. Trial Court after considering Action Taken Report,
furnished by the investigating agency. It has also been observed that
present case pertains to financial transaction between the complainant
and the accused which appears to be of civil nature and the complainant
failed to provide the substantial evidence of the alleged fraud
committed upon him by showing any document which were entered
into by the complainant at the time of entering into the agreement for
purchase of paint or subsequent transaction regarding property. The
present complaint seems to have been filed as an counter blast to the
FIR registered against the revisionist in the present matter by the
respondents in which the chargesheet have been filed and the
proceeding are pending trial before the court. The revisionist here had
taken all ground of his defence in the aforesaid FIR with the intention
for initiating criminal proceeding against respondents. As rightly held
by the Ld. Trial Court in its para 13 to 18. Therefore, no cognizable
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.26 of 29
offence under the Penal Code has been made out. Record further
reveals that all the allegations levelled by the complainant is either
defence raised in the FIR registered against him and do not show any
cognizable offence committed by the respondent.
23.Further, the complainant is also well within the knowledge of alleged
transactions between them. Therefore, in this case, nothing has to be
recovered from the alleged accused persons. Further, the allegations
against proposed accused persons can be proved by complainant and
evidence in support of her allegations, by leading evidence. Further, the
identity of accused persons is known to the complainant and the alleged
evidence / documents is also in the control of the complainant and all
the incriminating facts are well within the knowledge of the
complainant.
24. Keeping the above facts and circumstances of the case at hand, in
revision, the scope is very limited. Moreover, the observations made by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP, Crl. Appeal No.
1685/2007 decided on 07.12.2007 by Hon’ble Apex Court , are squarely
applicable to instant case. There is no ground to deviate from the
remedy available to petitioner under Section 200 CrPC.
25. Undisputedly, the Magistrate can exercise his power under Section 156
(3) of the Code, however must not exercise and pass the order
mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.27 of 29
ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are
quite serious and evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or
custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery or
article or discovery of fact, which is not in the present case.
26. In the present case, complainant/ revisionist is in possession of all the
materials which are required to be produced in support his allegations
and the identity of alleged accused persons are well known to the
complainant/ revisionist. The allegations as raised by the complainant
do not appear to be of such a nature requiring custodial interrogation of
accused persons or intervention of the State in the form of police
investigation.
27. However, the allegations still may be proved by complainant before Ld.
Trial Court through oral and documentary evidence in support of his
complaint u/sec. 200 CrPC. As such, the complainant has specific
knowledge regarding the incidents in question as well as chain of
events. Even otherwise, Ld. Trial Court has not dismissed the
complaint, rather directed to lead evidence.
28. Therefore, the complainant has all liberty to prove his complaint by
leading evidence thereto. No proper justification is given in the grounds
of revision petition, for referring the matter to police for investigation.
The reason for not ordering the registration of FIR in the instant case by
Ld. Trial Court are well founded and are duly reflected in the impugned
CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.28 of 29
order passed by Ld. Trial Court, keeping in view of the law laid down
while deciding the application in hand.
29. After going through the impugned order, I find that Ld. Trial Court has
not passed cryptic order. The said impugned order has reasons which
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Those reasons were
outcome of proper exercise of judicial discretion. Accordingly, I find no
discrepancy or procedural irregularities in the impugned order passed
by learned Trial Court. The complainant has also failed to establish any
illegality in the impugned order.
30. So, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant/ revisionist by
referring to the case law as stated in preceding paragraphs of this order,
do not hold ground to the cause of complainant. Same stands discarded.
The net result is that, revision petition lacks merit. Impugned order is
legally correct. Accordingly, present revision petition, stands dismissed
and order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, stands upheld.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Order Dasti. Sheetal Digitally signed by Sheetal chaudhary chaudhary Date: 2026.04.09 04:11:41 +0530 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 09.04.2026(vk) CR No. 749/2024 M/s Srodeep Infra Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Malik & Ors. Page No.29 of 29