$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010444172026 + CRL.M.C. 6911/2026 & CRL.M.As. 28971-72/2026 SINDHU RATAN KUL BHASKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar with Mr. Jogeshwar Gupta, Advocates. versus SUBHASH TYAGI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 18.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘Cr.P.C.’]), assailing the order passed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 59/2021, whereby the revision preferred by the respondents came to be allowed, and the order of the Magistrate summoning the respondents, passed after recording the pre- summoning evidence in the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., came to be set aside. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court has erred in allowing the revision and in setting aside the summoning order, which had been validly passed by the Magistrate after recording the pre-summoning evidence. It is contended that there was 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:28 sufficient material before the Magistrate, and, taking the Court through the evidence of the witnesses examined at the pre-summoning stage, it is submitted that the Magistrate had rightly exercised his discretion in summoning the respondents. It is further contended that the action taken report filed by the police was wrongly taken into consideration, inasmuch as the entire allegations were directed against the police officials; and that the revisional Court erred in holding that the Magistrate had not assigned appropriate reasons for summoning. 3. Although none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, their stand, as reflected in the order impugned and in the material on record, is that no offence is made out against them; that the action taken report filed by the police, upon a detailed inquiry, found that no incident of abduction or of threat had taken place; that the complaint is in the nature of a counter- blast to the business disputes between the parties, in respect of which the respondents have themselves filed a complaint before the Economic Offences Wing against the petitioner; and that the summoning of the respondents was, in the circumstances, an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 5. It appears that there are multiple proceedings pending between the parties, and that the disputes are essentially in the nature of business transactions. The revisional Court, in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, has assigned various reasons for allowing the revision, which are extracted as under: “10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2, and have perused the record carefully. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is merit in the revision petition and the same deserves to be allowed due to the following reasons: 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:28 (i) It is a matter of record that, along with the present complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC, respondent no. 1/complainant had also filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC before the Ld. Trial court. Detailed Action Taken Report was submitted by the IO. After considering the above said ATR, Ld. Trial court had dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC filed by respondent no. 1/complainant with the following observations:— ‘The police has conducted a detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that there was no incident of abduction and threats. Complainant has failed to explain how he was talking on phone when he was abducted and why he did not raise any alarm during the journey from Delhi to Shamli. The entry lodged by Shamli Police also states that no cognizable offence is found to be committed. It is the admitted position that a litigation is already pending between the parties and the relationship are strained. Complainant has failed to give any reasonable explanation to counter the deficiencies cited by the police in the status report.’” 6. It is thus evident that, upon a detailed inquiry conducted by the police, it was found that no incident of abduction or of threat had taken place; that the complainant did not explain how he was speaking on the telephone at the time he is said to have been abducted, or why he did not raise any alarm during the journey from Delhi to Shamli; and that an inquiry conducted by the ACP (Vigilance) into the allegations also found them to be unsubstantiated. At the stage of pre-summoning evidence, the complainant merely reiterated the averments made in the complaint. In these circumstances, the Court below rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)1. 7. This Court finds that the order summoning the respondents amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. The categories of cases in which the process may be quashed to prevent such abuse have been delineated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,2 which include the following: 1 (2012) 5 SCC 424. 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:28 “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. … … … (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Even otherwise, the scope for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 10. The pending applications also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 tr/ad 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:28