$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 + CRL.M.C. 845/2026, CRL.M.A. 3346/2026 & 3347/2026 RAJENDER YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Alok, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Rahul, PS Malviya Nagar CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 13.10.2025 of the Court of Sessions whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. Rather, the petition is completely frivolous.

3. At the very outset, the legal position was pointed out to counsel for petitioner as follows. The provision under Section 438(3) BNSS (Section 397(3) CrPC) prohibits second revision petition. What is explicitly prohibited by law cannot be allowed a backdoor entry unless the petitioner is able to establish a case of gross injustice. It is on this aspect that learned counsel for petitioner was called upon to address the gross injustice, if any, CRL.M.C. 845/2026 Page 1 of 6 pages GIRISH D D i N g : i t c a = l I y N s , i o g = n H e I d G b H y C G O IR U I R SH T O KA F T D H E P L A H L I, I A

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65fe4afec45569af3962c6f b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -

caused to the petitioner. As mentioned above, two courts below have concurred in their decision against the petitioner.

4. Broadly speaking, the factual matrix as recorded by the Court of Sessions in the impugned order is as follows:

“'Succinctly, the case of the complainant is that he is in the business of developing properties and sometime, in the month of January 1996, he was approached by alleged no. 1 at his office situated at C57, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar and alleged no.1 represented that he, along with alleged no.2, acquired the right to sell the immovable property at C-75, Shivalik, New Delhi (hereinafter called the property in question) for a total sum of Rs. 1.15 crore and offered the complainant to take up the project in order to develop the property. The condition imposed by the alleged was that the complainant has to pay earnest money of Rs. 30 lacs in cash and the remaining amount could be paid in cheque, when the sale deed would be executed Finding the proposal lucrative, the complainant asked the alleged persons to make him meet everyone who is concerned with the sale of property and to show the title documents, in order to do due diligence of the project. The complainant submits that alleged no. l assured him that the title of property was not disputed and, his power and right to sell the property was unquestionable and he was also assured that the documents will be prepared after arranging a meeting with alleged no.3.

The complainant further submits that in February 1996, a meeting was held at his office at the request of alleged no. l where alleged no.1 and 2 came and, alleged no.2 was introduced as the other in law of alleged no.3 and it was informed for the first time that alleged no.3 had purchased the property in question from original allottee O.P. Sondhi and had a right to transfer the property in question and alleged no.2 was the power of attorney holder of alleged no.3. He submits that alleged no.2 said that alleged no.3 was living abroad but all the original documents were in his possession and he was empowered to transfer and sell the property in question. As per the complainant, the copy of GPA was also produced in front of him and believing the representation, he agreed to explore the transaction. The complainant submits that no objection certificate was required from the concerned society where the property was situated and it CRL.M.C. 845/2026 Page 2 of 6 pages GIRISH D D i N g : i t c a = l I y N s , i o g = n H e I d G b H y C G O IR U I R SH T O KA F T D H E P L A H L I, I A

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65fe4afec45569af3962c6fb4

835d435f97626cacca, ou=