JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Cr. Rev. No. 108/2022 titled “SANJAY KUMAR GAUR & ANR vs STATE & ORS” whereby the learned ASJ has upheld the Order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) dated 22.02.2022 dismissing the petitioners’ application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioners/complainants claim to be the joint owners of the agricultural land measuring 43.10 acres situated at village Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2191/2023 Page 1 of 7 Durina/Dulina, Tehsil Jhajjar, Haryana. The petitioners entered into Agreement to Sell dated 25.04.2019 (hereafter, the ATS) with M/s Dalmia Ram Rattan Strategic Investment LLP/respondent No. 7 for an advance consideration of Rs. 4.72 crores out of a total sale consideration of INR 1,10,00,000 per acre of land and the balance sum was to be paid on execution of sale deed. However, due to lack of funds, the sale could not be completed within the stipulated period. Consequently, the petitioners terminated the said agreement and forfeited the advance received. It was further claimed that thereafter, the petitioners gave two post-dated cheques to respondent No. 5 as security for executing the cancellation deed. On 22.01.2022, the cancellation agreement was executed and refund of advance was made by way of the RTGS. However, contrary to the understanding, the said two cheques were never returned to the petitioners and later, misused by respondent No. 7 by presenting them for encashment. The petitioners in order to avoid wrongful loss issued instruction to their bank for stop payment. The cheques were dishonoured whereafter, respondent No. 7 initiated proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against the petitioners.

3. As the respondent no.7 had acted contrary to understanding between the parties, the petitioners filed a police complaint regarding the alleged illegal act but since no action was taken, the petitioners moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. In the Action Taken Report (ATR), requisitioned by the Ld. ACJM, it was reported that a civil suit was pending regarding recovery from Aravali Logistics Park Pvt Ltd as balance amount of Rs. 4.7 crore was still due. It was also reported that the cases filed by the respondent No. 7 under Section 138 NI Act were dismissed on technical ground by the concerned Court at Gurugram. Further, it was stated that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2191/2023 Page 2 of 7 dispute arose between the parties due to violation of verbal/contractual agreement and that the matter is civil in nature. Learned ACJM while dismissed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and directed continuation of proceedings under Section 200 CrPC, the petitioners challenged the same however, the revisional court also found no merit and dismissed the challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the learned ASJ has erroneously and wrongly concluded that that there is no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. ACJM, that all evidence is within control/reach of the petitioners and therefore, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC has been wrongly dismissed. It is stated that the attempt made by the accused persons to encash the post-dated cheques amounts to an offence under Section 406/420/120B/511/34 IPC and the learned court failed to notice that if preliminary inquiry discloses commission of cognizable offence, then FIR must be registered. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of UP reported as (2014) 2 SCC 1.

Further, it is stated that in the ATR filed on 28.01.2022, it has been mentioned that disputed cheques do not bear the handwriting of the petitioners and that it is beyond the reach of the petitioners to investigate and lead evidence in a private complainan