Joginder Kaur & Ors. vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

$~A-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010536682023
+ CRL.M.C. 9272/2023 & CRL.M.A. 34640/2023
JOGINDER KAUR & ORS.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Davindre N. Grover and Mr.
Gursimran Singh Rekhi, Advocates

versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saksham Chawala, Advocate for
R-2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The point involved in the present petition is a very short one.
2. Mr. Narinder Singh and Smt. Surjit Kaur (respondent Nos. 2 & 3) had
filed a criminal complaint case against petitioners herein. Along with
complaint, they also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking
registration of FIR.
3. Aforesaid complaint and the application were taken up by the learned
Magisterial Court on 11.11.2019 and observing that no offence stood
revealed, learned Magisterial Court, while dismissing the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., went on to hold that there was no sufficient ground to
take cognizance under Section 190(c) Cr.P.C. Observing that it would be a
futile exercise to examine complainants and their witnesses on oath under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., even the complaint was dismissed.
4. Apparently, complainants were never given any opportunity to lead
any pre-summoning evidence and the fact that no offence stood revealed was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9272/2023 1

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:00:41

based merely on the perusal of the averments in the complaint.
5. Said order was assailed by filing Revision Petition.
6. Revision was allowed in part.
7. Though, learned Revisional Court did not interfere with the dismissal
of application seeking investigation and registration of FIR, it directed the
Magisterial Court to give an opportunity to the complainants to lead
pre-summoning evidence.
8. Present petition has been filed by the proposed accused and they submit
that since the learned Magisterial Court had, categorically, returned a finding
that no offence stood revealed, learned Revisional Court should not have
given any permission to the complainants to lead pre-summoning evidence.
9. Learned counsel for petitioners rely upon Anoop Kumar versus State
and Anr .: 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12198, Mohammed Ibrahim and Others
versus State of Bihar and Another : (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Bandekar Brothers
Private Limited and Another versus Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others : 2020
SCC OnLine SC 707. It is submitted that in Anoop Kumar (supra ), the
question was almost identical and while dismissing application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magisterial Court had dismissed the complaint
observing that no offence had been committed by the concerned accused. He
states that this Court, eventually, observed that Magistrate is obligated to
record statements of the complainant and its witnesses only when the
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences in question. The relevant
observation made in para 16 of said judgment reads as under:-
“16. I have given my anxious consideration to the plea of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it is incumbent upon the Magistrate in every
case to permit the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence in order to
arrive at a conclusion as to whether any offence is made out, but I am
unable to persuade myself to agree with the same. A bare perusal of Section
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9272/2023 2

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:00:41

200 itself reveals that it is only imperative for a Magistrate to record the
statements of the complainant and his/her witnesses when he has taken
cognizance of the offence(s) in question. However, when no such
cognizance has been taken, neither Section 156(3) nor Section 200 can be
read to caste a binding mandate on the Magistrate to record
pre-summoning evidence before dismissing an application under section
156(3) Cr.P.C., when the averments made in the said application alongwith
the documents in support thereof make it crystal clear that there is no
ground for putting the investigative machinery into motion. To hold
anything to the contrary would, in my opinion, lead to a situation where the
Courts would be unnecessarily burdened and precious judicial time would
be wasted in recording evidence qua facts that are already apparent from
the record.”


10. Undoubtedly, there is no qualm with respect to the abovesaid
proposition.
11. The learned Magistrate would be well within its right to disallow
leading of pre-summoning evidence if the version of the complainant, when
taken on its face value, reveals no offence, at all. Here, there are specific
allegations with respect to criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery.
Reference be made to paras 10, 11 and 12 of the complaint in particular.
12. Learned Revisional Court, vide order dated 11.05.2023, had, inter alia,
observed as under:-
......
“13. As per complaint, the hierarchy of owners of property no. 21B/8,
Tihar II, Double Storeys, Prem Nagar, New Delhi — 110058 is as
under:

“First Owner - Smt. Gian Kaur, w/o Late Sardar Sant Singh
(vide Sale Deed dated 02.07.1970)

Second Owner- Smt. Jasbir Kaur (daughter of Smt. Gian
Kaur) by virtue of a Will dated 18.11.1991 and registered Gift
Deed dated 01.02.1994.

Third Owner - 1. Narinder Singh (complainant No.1 /
revisionist No.1 and son of Late Sh. Bahadur Singh (S/o Smt.
Gian Kaur) and 2. Smt. Surjit Kaur (complainant No.2 /
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9272/2023 3

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:00:41

revisionist No.2 and daughter of Late Smt. Amarjeet Kaur
(daughter of Smt. Gian Kaur), they purchased the said property
from Smt. Jasbir Kaur (daughter of Smt. Gian Kaur) vide
registered Agreement to Sell/GPA dated 04.08.2015.”

14. It is alleged in the complaint case by revisionists that they had filed
a civil suit for possession and other reliefs in the court of Ld. ADJ and
respondent no.1, 2 and 3 filed their written statement alleging that
various documents including a Will dated 19.3.1997 was executed by
Smt. Gian Kaur in favour of Sardar Ram Singh Gulati. Revisionists have
placed copies of these documents in criminal complaint case. These
documents are copies of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to
Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and a Will, all dated 19.3.1997. Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate has taken a view that on that date Ms Gian Kaur was alive
and therefore, it cannot be said that she could not have executed the
said documents. Hence, I would point out that original documents i.e.
GPA. Agreement to Sell, Will etc. dated 19.3.1997 have not been filed by
respondents along with written statement in the civil suit till date. In the
complaint case, their photocopies have been filed by revisionists.
Without having the original documents, it is not possible for Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate to opine as to whether a cognizable offence
has been committed or not and whether the matter is fit for registration
of FIR.

15. However, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate should have given an
opportunity to revisionists to lead their evidence. During evidence
revisionists can also ask for production of the said alleged forged
documents. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has all the powers to order
their production under Section 91 CrPC. Further, Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate also has powers under Section 202 CrPC to order
investigation in respect of documents alleged to be forged.
Consequently, whereas I find no infirmity in the order of Ld
Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application under Section 156
CrPC. The revisionists require an opportunity to prove their case.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside only to the extent vide which
the complaint case no. 246/2019 was dismissed. The present case is
remitted back to Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West, THC, Delhi,
who shall assign the case to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate of competent
jurisdiction. The said Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate shall give an
opportunity to revisionists/complainants to lead pre-summoning
evidence. Let the revisionists appear before Ld. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, West District, THC, Delhi on 22.5.2023.”


13. Since there are allegations which go on to constitute commission of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9272/2023 4

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:00:41

certain offences, the purpose of the filing of complaint would stand
completely frustrated and negated in case complainants are not permitted to
lead and adduce evidence. At this initial juncture, the Court is not required to
give any final opinion with respect to the correctness of the averments.
14. If, eventually, despite leading such evidence, the Magisterial Court is
of the view that no offence stood revealed, it can always dismiss the
complaint but to deny grant of such bare opportunity would result in serious
injustice to the complainants as even the police has not registered any FIR.
The reply filed by the police is on record, which merely indicates that the
matter was sub judice before a Civil Court with the rider that the police was
ready and willing to abide by any direction to be passed by the Court. Thus, it
seems that FIR was not registered, merely, for the reason that a civil suit was
pending. There is no denying the fact that a particular act or conduct may give
rise to civil as well as criminal action.
15. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any erroneous exercise of
jurisdiction, necessitating invocation of revisional powers. The object of
provision of revision is to set right any patent defect or error of jurisdiction or
law. There is neither any manifest illegality nor instance of any miscarriage of
justice.
16. Resultantly, the present petition is, hereby dismissed.
17. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only
tentative in nature and would not prejudice the mind of the learned
Magisterial Court at any subsequent stage.

(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 16, 2026 /sw/dr/js
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9272/2023 5

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:00:41