Facts
The petitioner-company filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents and sought a direction for registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p.1, para.1The complaint alleged that Respondent No. 2 represented that he could arrange ₹100 crore for the petitioner’s integrated township project at Roorkee, Haridwar, and induced the petitioner to pay ₹2 lakh towards processing fees and ₹10.80 lakh towards stamp duty and registration charges.
Source reference: p.1–2, paras.5–6The petitioner thereafter transferred ₹12.80 lakh and an additional ₹25 lakh to M/s Aditya Finance Services, but no loan was arranged, allegedly causing a loss of ₹37.80 lakh and involving cheating, breach of trust and forgery
Source reference: p.1–2, paras.5–6The Trial Court declined to direct police investigation, noting that the complaint had been filed after approximately five years, the accused were identifiable, the complainant knew the relevant facts and witnesses, and the documents were in its possession.
Source reference: p.2, para.7The petitioner’s revision petition was dismissed by the Revisional Court on 14 October 2023, following which the petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p.1, paras.2–4The petitioner explained the delay by stating that its Managing Director had remained in judicial custody for approximately five years.
Source reference: p.2, para.8Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of the petitioner’s revision petition, where such invocation would effectively amount to a second revision.
Source reference: p.3–4, paras.11–122. Whether the facts of the case warranted a direction for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. despite the complainant’s knowledge of the accused, transactions, witnesses and documentary evidence.
Source reference: p.2–3, paras.7–10Law Applied
The Court considered Sections 200, 156(3) and 482 Cr.P.C., relating respectively to the filing of a complaint, directions for investigation by a Magistrate, and the High Court’s inherent powers.
Source reference: no citationIt applied the principle under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. that a second revision petition is barred and that inherent jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to circumvent that statutory prohibition or create an alternative revisional forum
Source reference: p.3, para.11Relying on Sharma Welding Store & Ors. v. Fortune Weld, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10563, and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Court held that interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of a revision is permissible only in exceptional circumstances involving failure of justice, illegality or abuse of process
Source reference: p.3–4, paras.11–12The Court further applied the principle that police investigation under Section 156(3) is unnecessary where the complainant possesses the relevant documents, knows the accused and can lead the necessary evidence before the Trial Court
Source reference: p.2–3, paras.7–10Reasoning
The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p.3–4, paras.11–12The petitioner’s challenge followed dismissal of its revision and therefore substantially constituted an attempt to obtain a second revisional adjudication, which was impermissible absent failure of justice, illegality or abuse of process
Source reference: p.3–4, paras.11–12On the request for investigation, the Court accepted the Trial Court’s findings that the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of nearly five years, the identity of the accused was known, the manner of the alleged offence and transaction details were within the petitioner’s knowledge, and the relevant documents were already in its possession
Source reference: p.2, para.7The explanation concerning the Managing Director’s custody did not justify the delay because the complaint could have been filed through an attorney or authorised representative
Source reference: p.2–3, para.9Since no specific material or evidence requiring police collection was identified, the Court held that an investigation under Section 156(3) was not required
Source reference: p.3, paras.9–10Holding
The Court answered both issues against the petitioner.
It held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be used as a second revision in the absence of failure of justice, illegality or abuse of process, and that the Trial Court had rightly declined to order police investigation because the complainant possessed the relevant facts and documents and could lead evidence itself
Source reference: p.3–4, paras.10–13Finding no illegality in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the petition
Source reference: p.4, para.13Original Court PDF
Arjun Kkr Developers Pvt Ltd.vsState Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in