[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Harshvardhan Goel vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 16th December, 2025
Pronounced on: 09th February, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 1442/2024, CRL.M.A. 22255/2025
HARSHVARDHAN GOEL
S/o Shri Surender Goel
R/o E-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I,
New Delhi-110052.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Ministry of Home Affairs
(through its Secretary)
New Delhi-110001.
2. STATE
Through the Police Station
Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
3. SHRI KANIK GOYAL
S/o Shri Jai Prakash Goyal
R/o H.No.M-226, DLF Capital Green Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, UOI.
Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini
Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus,
Mr. Manan Wadhwa and Mr. Luv
Mahajan, Advocates
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS W.P.(CRL) 1442/2024 Page 1 of 13
ARORA
Signing Date:10.02.2026
18:16:12
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner to challenge the
Order dated 09.04.2024 whereby the learned ASJ has set aside the Order of
the learned M.M dismissing the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C
and has directed registration of FIR.
2. Furthermore, the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0192/2024
dated 09.04.2024 under Section 420/120B IPC registered at Police Station
Moti Nagar consequent to the Orders of the learned ASJ dated 09.04.2024.
3. Briefly stated, a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C along with
Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was filed by Shri Kanik Goyal
Respondent No.3 before the learned M.M. It was averred in the Complaint
by Respondent No.3/Complainant that Shri Harshvardhan Goel/Petitioner
along with Akhil Goyal (brother of the Complainant), had formed a
Partnership Firm M/s Goyal and Goel Stainless Steels vide Partnership Deed
dated 16.06.2018 whereby both the Partners had equal share of 50% each.
Shri Akhil Goyal died in a road accident on 18.03.2021 in suspicious
circumstances. The Firm had its office at rented premises bearing No.K-283,
Pocket A, Sector-3, Bawana from 06.07.2018 till December, 2020.
Thereafter, the Office was shifted to property bearing No.278, Pocket J,
Sector-1, Bawana, Delhi.
4. The Complainant asserted that the annual turnover of the Partnership
Firm was around Rs.3.5 Crores, at the time of the demise of the brother.
Shri Surender Goel, father of Harshvardhan Goel, was the Proprietor of the
Firm by the name and style of M/s Goel Metal and Strips Co. having its
Office at Wazirpur, New Delhi.
5. It was claimed that Surender Goel, his wife Sunita Goel and
Harshvardhan Goel along with other associates, started interfering in the
affairs of the Partnership Firm. It came to their notice that they all in
connivance with each other, raised Demand Bill/Notice in the name of the
Partnership Firm which were found to be forged and fabricated as the
address in the Invoices and Bills was of K-283, Bawana, Delhi even though
the Partnership Firm was having its Office at J-278, Bawana, Delhi. It was
further claimed that the Accused persons raised fake and fabricated
registration vehicle No. i.e. DL01LQ9983, DL0145665, DL01LAB7218 and
DL01LW3042, through which the alleged goods were supplied. All the
documents were found to be fake and fabricated as no such Registration
numbers exist. It was claimed that the documents have been forged in order
to fulfil their criminal acts and for siphoning off the huge amount from the
Partnership Firm, in their Bank Account.
6. The Partnership Firm had an account in Axis Bank, Branch Ashok
Vihar. The Accused persons made illegal demands of money, as generated
on the basis of the false and fabricated documents. After the demise of Shri
Akhil Goyal, Harshvardhan Goel with mala fide intention conspired with his
family members and got the Mobile Banking Services such as OTP,
transaction messages stopped and thereafter, did the transactions of huge
amount in their account from the Company's Bank Account in Axis Bank.
It is claimed that if the Bank officials had been informed about the death of
one Partner, then the account would have been freezed, but the Accused
deliberately did not do so in connivance with the Bank Officials; instead
they got the Banking Services of Akhil's Mobile Number stopped so that
they were not able to find about these transactions.
7. Later, when it came to the knowledge of the Complainant, then he
got the Account defreezed by informing the bank officials about the death of
one Partner. It was claimed that no Bank official could have stopped the
OTP/Message Service to any person, without any prior written Application
of such person and in case of death, then the Application of the Legal Heir
of such person.
8. It was further claimed that Accused Surender Goel filed a Civil Suit
under Order XXXVII CPC against the Complainant and his family, to escape
the punishment of illegal banking transaction and cheating in the Court of
District Judge. However, their Application under Order XXXIX Rule 8 CPC
was dismissed on 28.02.2023, by observing that material facts had been
suppressed by Shri Surender Goel.
9. Furthermore, Harshvardhan Goel in connivance with the other
Accused, filed a Criminal Complaint in Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi on
the basis of false and concocted story, to make the Complainant bow before
them and to grab the business of the deceased brother.
10. It was further asserted that the Accused persons can go to any extreme
to harm the Complainant and his family members. The Accused persons had
also threatened the Complainant and his family of involving them in false
and fabricated cases. Shri Surender Goel had a quarrel with the Complainant
for which the Police call was made on the next date i.e. 02.04.2022. Shri
Surender Goel had threatened him by stating that "Tujhe bhi tere bhai ke
paas pahucha dunga". At that time, the Complainant did not understand the
motive of the Accused persons. The Police officials intervened and the
matter was settled with mutual understanding.
11. It was further asserted that in the month of November, 2022, Shri
Surender Goel had approached the family of the Complainant at the father's
office, with the ulterior motive to grab the business of the bother and had
threatened the father with dire consequences. It was further indicated that a
Complaint was made to the Police on 27.03.2023, but no FIR was registered
and hence, the Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C was filed.
12. Learned MM vide Order dated 13.10.2023 dismissed the Application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by observing that the assistance of the Police
Agency was not required for collection of evidence. Moreover, the entire
evidence was documentary. Further, it appeared that after Mr. Akhil Goel,
the partner expired on 18.03.2021, the Partnership stood dissolved. The
Complainant was in possession of entire evidence and the Accused persons
were not known to the Complainant. The evidence could be produced by the
Complainant, as it was not beyond their reach. Consequently, the
Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed.
13. Revision Petition No.14/2024 was preferred by the Complainant
against the Order of the learned M.M. The learned ASJ after considering the
rival contentions and the Status Report filed by the Police, concluded that
from the nature of the allegations, it could not be held that the entire material
evidence was in the power and possession of the Petitioner. Even the
Preliminary Police Enquiry conducted qua the allegations of cheating,
misappropriation, forgery was incomplete. Though it was concluded that the
money had been siphoned off by the Accused for their own use, but no FIR
was registered, which shows an attempt to shirk from the duties imposed
under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The Police investigations were warranted in the
present case as the entire evidence was not within the reach of the
Complainant.
14. Also, Forensic evidence was required to be collected, which again
was in the domain of the Investigating Authority. Therefore, the Revision
was allowed and the Order of the learned M.M dated 13.10.2023 was set
aside and the FIR was directed to be registered within five days.
15. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR No.0192/2024 under Section
420/120B IPC was consequently registered on 09.04.2024, present Petition
has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the Order of the LD.ASJ and
also for quashing of FIR.
16. It is asserted in the petition that soon after the demise of Shri Akhil
Goyal, the Petitioner Harshvardhan Goel continued the operations of the
Firm with his successor Smt. Santosh Goyal, in terms of Clause 15 of the
Partnership Deed dated 16.06.2018 which stated that in case of death of any
partner, the Firm shall not be dissolved, but would be carried on by the
remaining partners with the heirs of the deceased, if the heirs so desire, on
such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed.
17. Smt. Santosh Goyal, successor partner, was being assisted by her
husband Shri Jai Prakash Goyal and Kanik Goel, Respondent
No.3/Complainant. Finding that Shri Jai Prakash Goyal was an elder person,
the responsibility of GST operation was entrusted to him in writing, with a
specific authority to manage the same. Smt. Santosh Goyal never objected to
the operations being continued after demise of Shri Akhil Goyal; rather the
GST records were handled by her husband Shri Jai Prakash Goyal.
18. The Petitioner Harshvardhan Goel claimed that because he had deep
respect and faith in Akhil Goyal and his family, the Petitioner's father
continued to invest money in the business and even continued to assist in the
business. However, Santosh Goyal and her family started betraying the trust
of the Petitioner.
19. The Petitioner Harshvardhan Goel has challenged the impugned Order
by way of the present Petition.
20. At the outset, it is submitted that the Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
has the powers to call and examine the record of any inferior Court, for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in the case. The object of this provision is to set
aside a patent defect or an error jurisdiction and law. There has to be well-
founded or an error, and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinise
the orders, which upon the face of them, bear a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law.
21. The revisional jurisdiction is a limited one and cannot be exercised in
a routine manner. The legality, propriety, and correctness of an Order passed
by the Court is the very foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under 397
Cr.P.C., but ultimately, it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction
can be exercised if there is a plausible error, non-compliance with the
provision of law. The decision is completely erroneous, where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily. For this proposition, reliance is placed on
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another (2012) 9 SCC 460.
22. Furthermore, in Amit Kapoor (supra), in the context of Section 397
Cr.P.C., it was observed that Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the other hand, is
based upon the principle that when the law gives anything to anyone, it also
gives all those things, without which the thing itself would be unavoidable.
The Section confers very wide powers to the Court to do justice and to
ensure that the process of Court is not permitted to be abused.
23. Reliance is also placed on State v. A. Soundirarasu, AIR 2022 SC
4218, wherein in the context of the revisional jurisdiction under 397 Cr.P.C.,
similar observations were made that the revisional power cannot be equated
with appellate power. The Revisional Court cannot undertake a meticulous
examination of the material on record as is undertaken by the Trial Court or
the Appellate Court.
24. The grounds of challenge are that the Counsel for the Petitioner had
claimed that the Firm stood dissolved, whereas no such arguments were
addressed before the learned ASJ. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner
that there was no jurisdictional error shown in the Order of the learned M.M
and warranted no interference by the learned ASJ, but this was not
considered in the impugned Order by the learned ASJ.
25. The learned M.M had rightly dismissed the Application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C and directed the Respondent to lead the pre-summoning
evidence and there was no ground for the Order to be interfered by the
learned ASJ and the powers have been erroneously exercised under Section
397, by learned ASJ.
26. The arguments of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 had no locus
standi to file the Complaint, as he was neither a Partner in the Partnership
Firm Goyal and Goel Stainless Steel nor the Legal Heir of the deceased
Akhil Goyal, as his parents were still alive has been overlooked. The
Respondent No.3 cannot be termed as an aggrieved person, for lodging a
Complaint to the Police. These aspects have not been considered by the
learned ASJ in its Order.
27. Furthermore, the learned ASJ while passing the impugned Order
directed the Police to recover the amount and also to do forensic evidence,
which observations were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and would
prejudice the fair investigation by the Police. The learned ASJ could not
have substituted his own observations by disregarding the Order of the
learned M.M. The impugned Order of the learned ASJ would cause grave
hardship to the family members of the Petitioner, as it spoils the clean record
of the Petitioner and his family members and their future prospect.
28. Reliance has been placed on Nawal Kishor Gupta & Anr. vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., 2011(1) Crimes 522 (All.) wherein it was held that if the
Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the Order passed by the Magistrate, he
could have remanded the matter to the Magistrate for passing a fresh order
in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the Sessions Judge himself could not
passed an Order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
29. It is further asserted that the direction of investigation under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. can only be given by the Magistrate, for which reliance is
placed on Anjuri Kumari vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others, 2023
SCC OnLine Del 7570.
30. The impugned Order of learned ASJ directing registration of the FIR
is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the FIR consequently registered is
liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Petition be
allowed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
31. The Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by the
Complainant/Respondent No.3 Kanik Goyal, seeking registration of FIR
against the Petitioners, on the allegations of taking away the entire
Partnership business of his deceased brother, Akhil Goyal. It is not in
dispute that there existed a Partnership between the deceased brother of the
Complainant and the Appellant Harshvardhan Goel. Akhil Goyal met with
an accident and he died. Thereafter, the Partnership was continued with
Santosh Goyal, mother of deceased Akhil Goyal. It is claimed that
Harshvardhan Goel while dealing with the business of the Partnership Firm,
embezzled huge amounts in respect of which the Complaint under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed.
32. There were specific allegations made that the Account of the
Partnership Firm was operated by Harshvardhan Goel, by manipulating the
Bank record and getting his own Mobile number registered with the Bank to
deal with the money. Consequently, the OTP messages and transaction
details cease to come on the Mobile number of Akhil Goyal.
33. Furthermore, there were specific allegations against the Appellant
that he had illegally obtained stocks worth Rs.36 lakhs of Partnership Firm
and when the Complainant's family had tried to get the same back, he had
locked the driver in the room.
34. There were also specific allegations of not only cheating, criminal
forgery, breach of trust, siphoning of funds, but also of criminal intimidation
and threats to the life of the Complainant and his family members.
35. The learned ASJ in the detailed Order, referred to the Status Report
filed on behalf of the State, wherein it was reported that while dealing with
the contents of the Complaint it was stated that on enquiry it was found that
the alleged persons in connivance with each other had transferred the
amount from M/s Goyal and Goel Stainless Steel in their personal accounts,
though, it was stated that they returned the money to the Current Account of
the Firm by producing a Ledger Account Statement. The perusal of the
Current Account Statement of the alleged Firm revealed that Surender Goel
had received Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.9 lakhs in his personal Bank Account and
also Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.3.5 lakhs and Rs.3.5 lakhs had been transferred in the
personal Bank Account of Sunita Goel. While some amounts had been
returned to the Partnership Firm Account on the same day, but it was
transferred to another Firm M/s Goel Metals and Strips. It was clearly
reflected that Surender Goel and Sunita Goel were siphoning off money
from the Partnership Firm.
36. Learned ASJ observed that considering the facts that the brother of
the Complainant was a Partner with Harshvardhan Goel/Accused in the Firm
M/s Goyal and Goel Stainless Steel and there was prima facie evidence of
illegal transfer of Rs.13 lakhs from the Account of the Partnership Firm to
the Account of Sunita Goel, Rs.31.50 lakhs in the personal Account of
Surender Goel and Rs.59.25 Lakhs in the Account of Harsh International. It
was evident that there was prima facie wrongful loss caused to the heirs of
erstwhile Partner in the Firm. The money had been transferred on various
occasions to various Accounts thereby prima facie disclosing the charges of
Cheating as well as Forgery. The material evidence required cannot be said
to be in possession of the Complainant and, therefore, directions were issued
for registration of FIR.
37. The learned M.M in the impugned Order, while referring to the Status
Report of the Police, wherein the siphoning of the fund from the Partnership
Firm by the Accused was stated, observed that the Complainant was in the
possession of entire evidence and he was aware of the identity of the
Accused persons and there was no need of Police assistance for the purpose
of evidence. Consequently, the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was
dismissed and the matter was listed for recording of evidence under Section
202 Cr.P.C.
38. It is quite evident that the alleged facts to establish the money
transfers and the Bank records, requires Police investigations. It is not in the
power and possession of the Complainant.
39. There was a jurisdictional error committed by the learned MM in
declining to allow the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not
directing registration of an FIR when there existed sufficient grounds to
direct the Police official to collect the evidence, and also when it was
evident from the record that the entire evidence was not in the power or
possession of the Complainant.
40. The learned MM was well within his revisional jurisdiction to correct
its patent error on the face of the record and failure of the learned MM to
exercise its discretion for directing the registration of an FIR in the right
manner.
41. Learned ASJ was right in directing the registration of FIR. There is
not infirmity in the Order of the learned ASJ. It is however, clarified that the
investigations shall be conducted in accordance with law, uninfluenced by
the observations of Ld. ASJ, indicating the manner of investigations.
42. The present Petition is accordingly dismissed.
43. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly along with the pending
Application(s).
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2026
VA
