$~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4749/2026 MRS NAVEEN CHOUDARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Mr.Anil Kumar Tomer, Mr. Surender Kumar Hooda, Mr. Aashish Gupta, Ms.Fema Pordung, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Vikram singh, SI Lal Chand PS Sb Dairy CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 10.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 19909-19910/2026 (for exemptions) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4749/2026 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the ASJ: Rohini Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 302/2026, whereby, the order passed by the JMFC, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, dated 28.10.2025, directing the registration of FIR against the respondentsno. 2 to 4 has been set aside. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner, who was the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:10:40 original complainant, alleged that respondent no. 2 to 4 conspired to cheat her of Rs. 44,00,000/- by falsely representing that they would sell Flat No. B-509, Pkt. GH-4, Rohini Hights Apartment, HIG, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi-42 to her. She stated that she had paid Rs.27,00,000/- on 18.08.2014 and was given possession. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent payments of Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is submitted that the sale deed was not executed and instead the respondents filed a civil suit for possession falsely portraying the petitioner as a tenant. It is the case that the civil suit was decreed, against which the appeal is pending before this Court. 3. The petitioner, however, alleged that as a result of a conspiracy hatched by the respondents,she has been cheated of a substantial amount of money. 4. Learned JMFC vide order dated 28.10.2025 directed for registration of FIR. The order dated 28.10.2025 would indicate that the facts which were narrated by the petitioner/complainant were taken note of in paragraph no. 3 of the said order. 5. A perusal of this order indicates that the learned JMFC directed for the registration of FIR, without dealing with the specific ingredientsof the alleged offences and how those ingredients are fulfilled in the instant case. It is this order which has been set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge videthe impugned order. 6. The findings rendered in paragraph nos. 14 and 17 of the impugned order are extracted as under: “14. Perusal of the above alleged receipt of Rs.27,00,000/- reveals that it is document of doubtful character. It only mentions that the accused/ revisionist has received a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- in cash in advance in parts up to 18.08.2014 against the property No.B-509, Height Apartment, HIG, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi. It is not recorded that there was an This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:10:40 intention on the part of the revisionist to sell the above said property or that an oral agreement to sell took place between the parties. Neither the date of said oral agreement is mentioned nor the time period after expiry of which the revisionist was required to execute sale deed in favour of the respondent no.2 / complainant herein. It is pertinent to note that it has been defence of the accused/ revisionist from the very beginning that the above said receipt has forged as well as fabricated. 17. In the above facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute between the parties primarily appears to be civil in nature and therefore, investigation by the police is not called for. Moreover, all the evidence is within the reach of the complainant/ respondent no.2 and identity of the accused is also known to her.” 7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the Sessions Court has applied its mind to the issue and appreciated the submissions made by the other side, ultimately noting that the dispute is essentially of civil in nature. This Court finds that the dispute essentially had arisen somewhere around 2014, and in the interregnum, the parties were litigating before the Civil Court (CS No. 639/2018). The complaint seems to have been filed after lapse of almost one decade, following an adverse civil court decree on 12.02.2024. Even today the parties are already before the Court in RFA. 8. The impugned order, at Paragraph 17 (reproduced above) notes that the complainant is aware of the accused’s identity and also has access to all the evidence. Therefore, the allegations, viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances and the civil court's findings, do not disclose a case requiring police investigation. It is the opinion of this Court that the revisional Sessions Courtrightly found that no cognizable offence is prima facie made out. 9. This Court in excise of power under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 Cr. PC 1973), read This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:10:40 with Article-227 of the Constitution of India, does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below. 10. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 10, 2026 Nc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 11:10:40