Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA, J.
Yogesh Mittal - Appellant
Vs.
The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4506 Of 2023 & CRL.M.A. 17258 Of 2023, CRL.M.A. 37084 Of 2024
Decided On : 29-08-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Arjun Malik, Mr. Kaushal Kaushik and Mr. Hamid Ali, Advocates, Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Himanshu Singh, Mr. Rahul Malik, Mr. Avinash Goyal and Mr. Sharan Bansal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State. ACP Vinod Gandhi and Insp. Rahul Soni, EOW/Delhi. Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Aman Pathak and Mr. Sumeet Mishra, Advocates
The court reinforced that for framing charges, sufficient prima facie evidence must exist, while allegations lacking substantiation do not preclude trial proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B - Petition challenging a revision order that set aside the discharge of the accused in a cheating and forgery case - The court emphasized that the allegations of the complainant, which included unauthorized fund transfers and forgery of signatures, were refuted by evidence establishing that the complainant had received his investment back, and financial dealings were authorized by the complainant. The learned Session Judge's order was found to have appropriately directed the framing of charges against the accused. (Paras 32-52)
(B) Judicial Review - The High Court's role in reviewing criminal proceedings does not allow for a reevaluation of evidence at the trial stage; the critical inquiry is whether there is sufficient ground to proceed to trial. The court noted that the evidence indicated that the allegations were dubious, primarily based on the complainant's failure to substantiate claims of coercion or fraud. (Paras 26-30)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions filed concerning criminal charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of prosecution allegations and filing of fir. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's discharge order and subsequent revision. (Para 8 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. arguments by petitioner no. 1 regarding evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. petitioner no. 2's arguments against revision ruling. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. state's position in response to allegations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. respondent's perspective on investigation findings. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. analysis and findings from the court. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46) |
| 9. final decision regarding discharge and implications. (Para 50 , 52) |
| 10. closure of the judgment and directive for compliance. (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The petition, CRL.M.C. 4506/2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘CrPC’) has been filed by, Yogesh Mittal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.1’), seeking the following prayers: -
“It is. therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to: -
a) summon the Trial Court record and the impugned Order dated 14.03.2023 passed in Crl. Revision NO. 81/2023 titled ‘Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Versus The State & Others’ passed by the court of Sh. Yashwant Kumar, Principal District &Sessins Judge, North- West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, may kindly be set aside and the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the court of Ld. C.M.M. North-West Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 138/2008 Criminal Case bearing no. 233/2/2013 of P.S. E.O.W., Mandir Marg, New Delhi, may be upheld / restored;
b) pass any further order(s) which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. The petition, CRL.REV.P. 700/2023, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed by, Vineet Mittal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner No.2’), seeking the following prayers: -
“(a) call for and peruse the records of
(i) Criminal Case No. 233/2/ 2023 (Old No. 534070/ 2016) titled as State Versus Vijay Kumar Mittal and others arising out of FIR No.138 of 2008 registered with Police Station EOW, New Delhi pending in the Court of Shri Rohit Gulia, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North West, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi; and
(ii) Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2023 titled as Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Versus State and others decided by the Court of Shri. Yashwant Kumar, Principal District & Session Judge, North-West District, New Delhi vide impugned order dated 14.03.2023;
(b) set aside the order dated 14.03.2023 passed passed by the Court of Shri Yashwant Kumar, Principal District and Session Judge, North-West District, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2023 titled as 'Naresh Kumar Aggarwal versus The State and others';
(c) discharge the Petitioner in Criminal Case No. 233/2/ 2023 (Old No. 534070/ 2016) titled as State Versus Vijay Kumar Mittal and others arising out of FIR No.138 of 2008 registered with Police Station EOW, New Delhi pending in the Court of Shri Rohit Gulia, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North West, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi; and
(d) grant any other and/ or further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the present case.”
3. The present petitions are being disposed of vide this common judgment as both of them have been filed assailing the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 81/2023 passed by Sh. Yashwant Kumar, learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North-West District, Rohini Courts. Vide the impugned order, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.2/complainant herein and set aside the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘CMM/CJM’), discharging the petitioners, in Crl. Case No. 233/2/2013 emanating from FIR No. 138/2
