Rajesh Malik vs State Of Haryana

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
116


CRR-741-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 15.09.2026
Rajesh Malik . .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sanya Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Jyuvraj Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana



MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in case arising out of FIR No.203 dated
27.05.2021 registered under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station DLF, Phase
I, District Gurugram, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for
discharge, has been dismissed and charge under Section 420 of the IPC has
been framed against him.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 2



2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
written complaint filed by the complainant Gaurav Chaudhary, alleging
therein that Ved Prakash Malik and his wife Savitri Malik, who are parents of
the present petitioner, had purchased a plot bearing No. G-3/20, Phase-I, DLF
City, Gurugram vide a sale deed registered on 21.09.1994. On 05.09.2020,
the present petitioner approached the complainant and by representing that he
had become the sole owner of the aforementioned property on the basis of a
relinquishment deed executed by his sisters, Neeru Suri and Rashmi Khanna,
in his favour and offered to sell the above-said property to the complainant.
By making false representations and inducement, he made the complainant
believe that the relinquishment deed was a genuine document and the
property stood in his name. Believing him, the complainant entered into an
agreement to purchase the aforementioned property for a sale consideration
amount of Rs. 5,55,11,000/-. He paid an amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- by way of
cash as well as cheques. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was
to be executed on or before 19.12.2020. Subsequently, on making inquiries,
the complainant came to know that the property in question was still standing
in the name of Ved Prakash Malik and also that the relinquishment deed
purported to be executed by the sisters of the petitioner was a false and forged
document. The sisters of the petitioner were contacted by the complainant,
who denied executing any such relinquishment deed. By alleging that the
petitioner, with intent to cause wrongful loss to him and to cheat him, had
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 3



extracted money from him and had forged documents, the complainant prayed
for taking action in the matter.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The petitioner was arrested and was subsequently extended the
benefit of bail. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was
presented in the court.
4. As discernible from the record, the petitioner moved an
application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
corresponds with Section 262 of BNSS, seeking his discharge on the ground
that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and no case for
commission of offense punishable under Section 420 of the IPC was made
out. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial court by
passing the impugned order dated 07.03.2026.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He was booked for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, and 471 of the IPC, but all the other
offences, except the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, have since been
deleted. In fact, the complainant himself could not arrange the remaining sale
consideration amount for the purpose of execution of the sale deed on
19.12.2020 as per the terms of the agreement, and it was he who had
prevailed upon the petitioner to extend the date of execution of the sale deed
till 19.03.2021. The complainant himself had entered into an agreement to
sell the same property with one Amarjit Singh on 04.03.2021 for a sale
consideration amount of Rs. 6.78 crores and had even received an amount of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 4



Rs. 20,00,000/- from the above-said Amarjit Singh. He did not contact the
petitioner for execution of the sale deed till 19.03.2021. By showing his own
bona fide , the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 17.03.2021 to the
complainant terminating the agreement to sell. The relinquishment deed
executed by his sisters was not the basis for execution of the agreement
between the petitioner and the complainant. Moreso, the sisters of the
petitioner had sworn affidavits in favour of the petitioner relinquishing their
shares in the property. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC are not at all attracted in this case. The dispute
between the parties is of a civil nature, which has been given a criminal
colour. The FIR has been lodged to misuse the process of law by the
respondent-complainant, who himself was having dishonest intention. There
are no chances of the case culminating into conviction, even if the allegations
in the FIR are assumed to be correct. While passing the impugned order, the
learned trial court did not take all these facts into consideration and
committed a grave error in declining the prayer made by the petitioner for
discharging him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside, the revision petition deserves to be accepted,
and the application filed by the petitioner for his discharge deserves to be
allowed. To fortify his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon Rikhab Birani and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another : 2025 SCC Online ; Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and another : (2019) 11 SCC 706 ; Radheyshyam and others
vs. State of Rajasthan and another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 ; A.M.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 5



Mohan vs. State represented by SHO and another : (2024) 12 SCC 181 and
Naresh Kumar and another vs. State of Karnataka and another : 2024 SCC
Online SC 268.
6. Per contra , learned State counsel has argued that the allegations
against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. After conducting a
thorough and proper investigation in the matter and finding his complicity in
the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC,
challan was presented against the present petitioner. The observations as
made by the learned trial Magistrate while passing the impugned order are
well-reasoned, and no ground for interfering with the same is made out. It is,
therefore, stressed that there is no merit in the petition, and hence it is argued
that the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties at considerable length.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be proper to have a look at
the provisions of Section 262 of BNSS (which is pari materia with Section
239 of Cr.P.C.), which read as under:
“Section 262.
(1) The accused may prefer an application for
discharge within a period of sixty days from the date
of framing of charges.
(2) If, upon considering the police report and the
documents sent with it under section 293 and
making such examination, if any, of the accused as
the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the
prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 6



heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against
the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the
accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
9. The first and the foremost question that has arisen before this
Court for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be
discharged? In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer to this
question is in negative for the reasons to be recorded in the coming
paragraphs.
10. The law with regard to the nature and degree of evaluation of the
material placed by the investigating agency before the Court at the stage of
consideration of an application for discharge is well settled. Section 262 of
BNSS, which corresponds to Section 239 of Cr.P.C., requires the Magistrate
to consider the police report and the documents sent with it and to discharge
the accused if the charge is found to be groundless. At this stage, the Court is
not required to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of
the evidence but is required to sift and weigh the material for the limited
purpose of determining whether the allegations and the material collected
during investigation disclose a prima facie case or raise a strong suspicion
warranting the accused to face trial. The Court is not expected to examine the
probative value of the material in the manner required at the stage of final
adjudication or to determine whether such material would ultimately result in
conviction. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal : (1979) 3 SCC 4 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court has the power to sift and
weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 7



prima facie case has been made out, while it is not required to conduct a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if
it were conducting a trial. Similar principles were reiterated in P. Vijayan v.
State of Kerala : (2010) 2 SCC 398 , wherein it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that at the stage of discharge, the Court is required to consider
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and is
not required to hold a detailed enquiry into the merits of the prosecution case.
In State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1294 , while relying upon State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa : (1996)
4 SCC 659 and State of M.P. vs. Mohan Lal Soni : (2000) 6 SCC 338 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the defence of the accused is not to be
examined at the stage of discharge. It was further held that the Code does not
give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing
of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material
produced by the investigating agency. The primary consideration at the stage
of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case and at this
stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. The
nature of evaluation to be made by the Court at the stage of framing of
the charge is to test the existence of prima facie case. It was also held that at
the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion to
the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is
not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to
check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the
conclusion of trial. Likewise, in Vishnu Kumar Shukla and another vs. State
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 8



of Uttar Pradesh and another : 2024 AIR Supreme Court 90 , with reference
to Rumi Dhar vs. State of West Bengal : (2009) 6 SCC 364 and State of
Tamil Nadu vs. N. Suresh Rajan : (2014) 11 SCC 709 , similar principles
were reiterated. Thus, while considering an application under Section 262 of
the BNSS, the Court is required to apply its judicial mind to the material
collected during investigation and ascertain whether the charge is groundless;
however, it is not required to embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence
or determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which is a matter
to be adjudicated upon after trial.
11. On applying the aforementioned principles to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has failed to make out a case for discharge. The allegations against
the petitioner are not confined to a mere failure to honour the terms of an
agreement to sell. The specific allegation is that the petitioner approached the
complainant and represented himself to be the exclusive owner of the
property on the basis of a relinquishment deed allegedly executed by his
sisters. Acting upon such representation, the complainant entered into an
agreement to purchase the property for a sale consideration of
Rs.5,55,11,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.41,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is
thereafter alleged that, upon making inquiries, the complainant discovered
that the property continued to stand in the name of the petitioner's father and
that the sisters of the petitioner denied having executed the relinquishment
deed. Thus, the prosecution case is that the petitioner made a representation
regarding his title and ownership by relying upon a document whose very
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 9



execution has been disputed by the persons shown to be its executants and, on
the basis of such representation, obtained substantial money from the
complainant. These allegations, if taken at their face value along with the
material collected during investigation, cannot be said to constitute a mere
case of breach of a contractual obligation. Rather, they prima facie disclose
the essential elements of deception and inducement which require
examination during trial.
12. The plea of the petitioner that the complainant subsequently
failed to arrange the balance sale consideration, that the date for execution of
the sale deed was extended and that the complainant had entered into another
agreement with a third person, cannot be examined in isolation at the stage of
discharge. These are essentially matters of defence and their evidentiary value
can be assessed only after the parties lead evidence. Likewise, the assertion
that the relinquishment deed was not the basis for execution of the agreement
to sell and that the petitioner's sisters had executed affidavits in his favour
cannot, at this stage, be accepted so as to negate the prosecution case. The
material collected during investigation has to be considered as a whole and
not by selectively accepting the version of the accused. The fact that the other
offences initially invoked against the petitioner have subsequently been
deleted also does not, by itself, furnish a ground for discharge from the
remaining offence under Section 420 IPC. What is required to be seen is
whether the material on record discloses sufficient ground for proceeding
against the petitioner for the offence which survives. In the present case, the
allegations concerning the representation of ownership, the disputed
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 10



relinquishment deed, the payment of Rs.41,00,000/- and the subsequent
discovery regarding the actual ownership of the property, taken cumulatively,
provide sufficient basis for the petitioner to face trial.
13. The judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner are distinguishable on their facts and do not lay down any
proposition which would warrant discharge of the petitioner in the present
case. In the cases relied upon by the petitioner, the proceedings were
interfered with in circumstances where the allegations, even if taken at their
face value, did not disclose the requisite ingredients of cheating, particularly
dishonest intention or inducement and the disputes were found to be
essentially civil in character. In the present case, however, the prosecution has
specifically alleged that the petitioner made a false representation regarding
his ownership and relied upon a relinquishment deed which was subsequently
denied by his sisters, pursuant to which the complainant was induced to part
with a substantial amount of money. The distinction is therefore material. The
present case does not rest merely upon subsequent non-performance of a
promise or failure to execute a sale deed. The allegation goes to the very
representation made by the petitioner at the inception of the transaction and
the circumstances in which the complainant was allegedly induced to make
the payment. Consequently, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments cannot be
applied mechanically to the facts of the present case at the stage of discharge.
14. It is also significant that the petitioner seeks to have the rival
versions of the parties weighed and the defence material accepted in
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 11



preference to the material collected by the investigating agency. Such an
exercise would amount to undertaking a detailed appreciation of evidence,
which is impermissible at this stage. The Court is only required to examine
whether the material placed before it raises a prima facie case or a strong
suspicion regarding commission of the offence. The Court cannot substitute a
possible defence of the accused for the prosecution material merely because
the accused asserts that the transaction was bona fide or that the complainant
was himself responsible for the failure to complete the transaction. Whether
the petitioner genuinely believed himself to be the owner of the property,
whether the relinquishment deed was in fact executed, whether the
complainant was induced by the representation made by the petitioner, and
whether the petitioner possessed dishonest intention at the relevant point of
time are all matters which require evidence and cannot appropriately be
finally determined in proceedings for discharge.
15. Thus, the material available on record, when considered in its
entirety and without entering into the merits or probative value of the
evidence, does not make the charge against the petitioner groundless. On the
contrary, the allegations and the material collected during investigation
disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against him for the offence under
Section 420 IPC. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly declined the
prayer for discharge and framed charge against the petitioner. Moreso, a
petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR has already been
dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 09.09.2026 passed by this Court in
CRM-M-27129-202. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-741-2026 (O&M) 12



Court finds no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the present petition is
dismissed.

15.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Waseem R. Waseem Waseem R. R. Ansari R. Ansari Ansari Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document