ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Delhi High Court · 29 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:6166

Manoj Jain

CRL.M.C. 1785/2024

2026:DHC:6166

criminal petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking FIR registration and investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent statutory bars on second revision petitions and that delay without justification and absence of necessity for investigation justified dismissal.

Full Text

CRL.M.C. 1785/2024 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th July, 2026

CRL.M.C. 1785/2024
ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Garg, Mr. Mihir Gujjewar and Mr. Shivam Mehrotra, Advocates.

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajkumar, APP for the State with
SI Kusum.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

JUDGMENT

(oral)

1. Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent herein and also sought direction for registration of FIR and investigation.

2. His such application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. did not find any favour and was, eventually, dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 12.09.2020.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the doors of the Revisional Court but his such Revision Petition has also been dismissed on 14.10.2023.

4. It is in the abovesaid factual backdrop that he has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking invocation of inherent power of this Court.

5. The broad facts of the complaint were noted by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 12.09.2022 which indicate that the respondent No.2 herein had approached the complainant and assured them that he could arrange entire CRL.M.C. 1785/2024 2 money needed for their project related to integrated township, at Roorkee, Haridwar. Complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as processing fee and Rs.10,80,000/- as stamp duty and registration charges for the purposes of disbursal of loan to the tune of Rs.100 crores.

6. Complainant-company transferred a sum of Rs.12.80 lacs to respondent-M/s Aditya Finance Services and, thereafter, another sum of Rs.25 lacs. The allegations are to the effect that nothing was done by respondent No.2 and thereby they did not only commit breach of trust but also committed cheating, forgery and caused wrongful loss to the complainant of Rs.37.80 lacs.

7. Learned Trial Court, while discarding the request of the petitioner for investigation, observed as under:-

“9. In the instant case, as per record, the complainant had filed the present complaint after the expiry of almost five years as the alleged incidents pertained to the year 2015-2016. During arguments, the complainant could not provide any reasonable justification behind the delay in filing the complainant. Nonetheless, the complainant is aware of the witness who are to be examined and/or in possession of complete details of the complaint/documents. The mode and manner in which the alleged offence is stated to have been committed is clear, identity of the accused is also not to be established. As per the submissions, identity of the accused persons is known to the complainant. Further, all the documents are lying in the possession of the complainant. The complainant has brought nothing on record to suggest as to what evidence is required to be collected through police investigation.”

8. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was never any deliberate inaction or slackness on the part of the complainant. He supplements that the complainant could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court simply for the reason that their Managing Director remained in custody for around five years and it was only after he was released from judicial custody that he was able to file the abovesaid CRL.M.C. 1785/2024 3 complaint and said application seeking requisite relief.

9. Even if the Managing Director was in custody, there was no prohibition in filing the complaint through attorney or representative. Moreover, as already noticed above, learned Trial Court has already taken note of the fact that the complainants are fully aware about the manner in which they have been allegedly cheated, they know about the complete details of the transactions in question and also are cognizant about the identity of the alleged offenders.

10. Viewed thus, there was, actually speaking no requirement of ordering any investigation.

11. In Sharma Welding Store & Ors. v. Fortune Weld: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10563, para 23 and 24 read as under:-

“23. After the aforesaid concurrent rejection by the first Revisional Court, the petitioners have chosen to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC). This clearly amounts to seeking a second revisional adjudication, disguised as a miscellaneous petition. Such a course of action is impermissible. Section 397(3) CrPC (pari materia Section 438 (3) of the BNSS) expressly bars a second revision petition. 24. A litigant cannot be permitted to do indirectly what is expressly barred directly. The jurisprudential foundation of this bar stands settled which speaks that inherent powers cannot be used merely because another statutory remedy has been exhausted or is not available, and that inherent powers are not meant to create an alternate revisional forum. In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a revision has already been filed and decided by the Sessions Court, a further petition before the High Court cannot be entertained under Section 482 CrPC to circumvent the embargo contained in Section 397(3) of the CrPC and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings unless there has been failure of justice such as illegality in the order, which is not the case in the instant matter due to the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

12. Herein, also, situation is almost akin. Moreover, there is nothing to CRL.M.C. 1785/2024 4 suggest or indicate that there is any failure of justice or abuse of the process of the Court, necessitating interference by this Court by invoking its inherent powers.

13. Viewed thus, finding no illegality in the impugned order, the petition is, hereby, dismissed.

5,524 characters total

JUDGE JULY 29, 2026/ss/sy

ARJUN KKR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation