Delhi District CourtPetitioner/Revisionist vs M/S T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd on 15 January, 2018IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
        ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT :
                   SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI 

Criminal Revision No. 210/2017

M/s Aggarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 
Through its Director Sh. Rakesh Agarwal, 
D­16/2­3, Okhla Industrial Area, 
Phase­I, New Delhi. 
                                                                      . . . .Petitioner/Revisionist

Versus

1. M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors
Tivoli Garden Hotel
Chattarpur Mandir Road, 
New Delhi­110030. 

2.  Sh. Rohit Gupta ( Director )
M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Tivoli Garden Hotel
Chattarpur Mandir Road, 
New Delhi­110030. 

3.  Sh. Puneet Gupta (Director)
M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Tivoli Garden Hotel
Chattarpur Mandir Road, 
New Delhi­110030. 

4.  Sh. Mahesh Chandra

CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  1 of 8
 M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Tivoli Garden Hotel
Chattarpur Mandir Road, 
New Delhi­110030. 
                                                                               . . . . Respondents

                                                                 [ In case CC No. 636170/16
                                                                 PS­OIA
                                                                 Under Section­ 200Cr.P.C]
Date of Institution                              :         28.04.2017.
Date of Arguments                                :         12.01.2018.
Date of Judgment/Order                           :         15.01.2018.

                                                 ORDER1.         This is a criminal revision underSection 397and399Cr.P.C has
been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 08.02.2017 in
criminal complaint titled                     "M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs T.G.
Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." (CC No. 636170/16). By the impugned order
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the application underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C of the revisionist herein.2.       Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents who
have appeared through their counsels.3.       Reply of the revision petition has been filed and both the counsel
have argued the matter. Trial Court Record was summoned for perusal.4.       The complainant M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was approached
through Sh. Rakesh Agarwal by Sh. Rohit Gupta of T.G. Buildwell Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. for sale of Residential Property (3 BHK Flat) at Tivoli Holiday


CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  2 of 8
 Village, Daruhera, Haryana. The revisionist booked a flat in the project
under the Construction Link Plan (CLP) on 10.03.2018. An Apartment
Buyer Agreement was also executed by virtue of which the revisionist was
allotted Flat No. 3B-001 in Tower No. TG-V of Super Area 144 Square
Meter. The revisionist/complainant made a payment of Rs. 11 Lacs vide
cheque No. 643432 dated 13.12.2007 at the time of booking and payment
of Rs. 05 Lacs vide cheque No. 645698 dated 19.04.2008. The total
consideration of the flat was Rs. 62 Lacs.5.       It is the allegation of the revisionist/complainant that on 01.09.2011
and 28.10.2013 the respondent raised Demand Notice without raising any
kind of construction qua the flat of revisionist/complainant. The revisionist
when visited the site found that there was no construction done at all. He
alleged that Demand Notice was illegal and arbitrary and against the ethics
of business and in contravention to the consumer's interest and rights. It
was alleged in the complaint that the respondents knew that they are not
going to construct any flat and they had executed Pre-Planned design and
conspired to make false and malicious representation on the basis of which,
the complainant/revisionist made payment of Rs. 16 Lacs to the
respondents. On the basis of these allegations, the criminal complaint underSection 200Cr.P.C was filed with the prayer to summon the accused and
punish accused persons for having committed offence underSection 420,403,405,409,467,468,506 r.w.Section 120BIPC.6.       With this criminal complaint, revisionist also moved an application
underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C with direction to the SHO concerned for

CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  3 of 8
 registration of the FIR.                    This application was dismissed by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 08.02.2017. Before disposing off
the application underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate
also called Action Taken Report from the concerned police station. The
said report was filed which made it evident that police had not taken any
action. Thereafter, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate considered the fact of
the case and prayer made for direction to the SHO for registration of the
FIR and opined that the complainant/revisionist was in possession of all the
agreement entered between the parties and the receipt of payment therein.
Further, that the complainant/revisionist was aware about the identity of the
alleged accused persons and no evidence was therefore to be collected. Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate while declining the prayer made in the application,
reserved the right to seek police investigation underSection 202Cr.P.C,
whenever the need arise.7.       The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist had submitted that the order
passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, is against the law of the land
and principle of natural justice and equity based on surmises and
conjectures. Revisionist had reproduced the allegations made in the
Criminal Complaint in the present revision petition. During the course of
arguments while referring to the facts of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the
revisionist had submitted that the respondents have not raised any
construction and they have allured innocent purchasers to invest in their
project but after receiving the money did not raise any construction and
misappropriated the money so received by them. He submitted that

CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  4 of 8
 registration of an FIR is necessary in this case.8.       On the contrary, the counsel for respondents has submitted that there
is no illegality in the order and as a revisional court the court has to
consider the illegality in the order. It was submitted that Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate has excercised his jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal
complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR.9.In the case ofRakesh Kumar Gupta Vs State ( Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) in Crl.             Revision No. 513/2004 decided on 18.09.2009 by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble court has observed that while
excercising revisional jurisdiction the court cannot go into intricate details
as regards the merits of a matter and may interfere only when there is any
illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the
Lower Court. A revisional court cannot act as a court of appeal and
reappraise the merits of the case.10.      In the case of Sanjay Sinh Ram Rao Chauhan Vs Dattarey Gulab  
Rao   Phalke   2015(3)   SC   Cases   123  the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has 
observed that the revisional power of court underSection 397to401IPC is 
not   be equated  with that  of  an  appeal.  Unless  the  finding of  the  court, 
whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable 
in   law   or   is   grossly   erroneous   or   glaringly   unreasonable   or   where   the 
decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly 
ignored   or   where   the   judicial   discretion   is   exercised   arbitrarily   or 
capriciously, the court may not interfere with decision in exercise of the 


CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  5 of 8
 revisional jurisdiction.11.      An aggrieved person can approach for redressal of his grievances by
making a complaint to the SHO of the concerned police station for
registration of an FIR underSection 154Cr.P.C. If the offence disclosed is
one which is cognizable in nature, the SHO has the duty to register the FIR.
However, in case he fails to discharge his duty, the aggrieved person has
the remedy to approach the senior officer of the police underSection
154(3)Cr.P.C. Apart from this, an aggrieved person can also approach the
Magistrate for direction to the police officials to investigate a cognizable
case and any Magistrate, who is empowered underSection 190Cr.P.C to
take cognizance of an offence, may issue such direction. But this is the
discretionary power of the Magistrate, who may either direct registration of
an FIR , if the facts of the case so required or he may proceed with the
complaint filed underSection 200Cr.P.C after taking the cognizance of the
offence.12.      Time and again it has been held that direction for registration of an
FIR underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C should be made after due application of
mind and after weighing circumstances of each case.13.In the case of M/sSkipper Beverages Vs State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi)  
625  the   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   had   considered   the   provision   underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C and observed that this power ought to be excercised 
primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence 
is beyond the reach of the complainant or custodial interrogation appeared 
to be necessary for some recovery of articles or discovery of facts.  
CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  6 of 814.      In the light of the above observed judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court the facts of the present case needs to be seen. The grievance of the
revisionist is that he booked a flat with the respondents and paid Rs. 11
Lacs at the time of booking and Rs. 5 Lacs thereafter but the respondents
did not raise the construction of the flats. During the course of arguments it
was conveyed that flat of the revisionist is in Tower No. 5 which has not
even been started yet while some Towers have been raised. Despite the fact
that no construction was being raised a demand Notice was sent in the year
2011 and 2013. The revisionist has not made any payment as per the
Demand Notice. His non compliance to the Demand Notice is based on the
ground that the construction work has not been started and without the
construction being in progress issuance of Demand Notice for Payment is
illegal and arbitrary. The allegations and the facts of the case as mentioned
in the complaint and addressed during the arguments falls in very narrow
compass. A field investigation or any scientific investigation is therefore
not the requirement of the case. The revisionist can establish its case on its
own on the basis of documents which are in his possession. Therefore in
the given circumstances the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the complaint underSection 200Cr.P.C instead of directing registration of an FIR underSection 156(3)Cr.P.C cannot therefore, be considered an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction.
As observed above, revisional court will rectify any illegality, irregularity
noted in the impugned order instead of substituting its view/opinion on the
exercise of jurisdiction, which is vested in the court which passed the

CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  7 of 8
 impugned order. Having found no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in
the impugned order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate dated 08.2.2017 there is
no ground to inferfere with impugned order.                                       The revision petition,
therefore, stand dismissed.15.      Trial court record along with true copy of this order be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court for information.16.      Revision file be consigned to Record Room.Announced in the open                       (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR) 
court today i.e. 15.01.2018.               Addl. Sessions Judge­02
                                    South­East, Saket Courts, New Delhi




CR No. 210/2017           M/s Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.        Page No.  8 of 8