Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
PS Lajpat Nagar
28.01.2026
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld counsel for revisionist.
Sh. A T Ansari, Ld Addl. PP for the State/ Respondent.
Arguments on revision heard.
Put up for orders during course of the day.
(Anuj Agrawal)
ASJ-03 (South East)
Saket Courts, Delhi/28.01.2026
At 11:30 AM
ORDER
Present: None.
1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred
against the order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate
whereby charges have been directed to be framed against the
revisionists for offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 IPC
in case FIR No. 771/2015 PS Lajpat Nagar.
2. Ld. Counsel for revisionist contends that the impugned
Digitally
signed by
ANUJ
ANUJ
AGRAWAL order is mechanical, that no incriminating material exists against
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.01.28
14:29:19
+0530
-2-
Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
revisionist, that the jewellery articles were deposited by Mrs. Vinita
Singh and same were returned to her as per the receipt placed on
record by Prosecution itself, that the dispute is civil in nature, that
even if the prosecution case is taken at face value, ingredients of the
alleged offences are not made out and that offence u/s 420 and 408
IPC can not go together.
3. Per contra, Ld. APP for State seeks dismissal of instant
petition submitting that same is devoid of any merit.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and
learned APP for the State. Trial Court Record has been carefully
perused.
5. The case of the prosecution, as reflected from the charge-
sheet, is that the complainant is the proprietor of a jewellery shop
running under the name and style of M/s Raj Ratna Jewellers at Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi. Revisionist Ajay Sehgal was working as a
salesman, while co-accused Safur Rehman was working as store
manager. It is alleged that both were entrusted with jewellery articles
in the course of their employment. On 03.01.2014, one customer, Mrs.
Nandita Verma, allegedly handed over gold ornaments weighing
approximately 36.040 grams for repair under a repair memo bearing
-3-
Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
serial no. 2678. The prosecution alleges that when the customer later
came to collect the ornaments, the same were not returned and evasive
responses were given. It is further alleged that co-accused Safur
Rehman stopped attending the shop and informed that he had handed
over stocks and repair articles to revisionist Ajay Sehgal. Upon
checking the stock, the complainant allegedly found shortages and
missing jewellery items. It is also alleged that Ajay Sehgal admitted
irregularities and thereafter stopped coming to the shop. During
investigation, documents including repair registers, stock registers and
invoices were seized and statements of witnesses including the
complainant and customer were recorded. On this basis, the charge-
sheet was filed for offences under Sections 408/420/34 IPC.
6. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court is not required to meticulously appreciate evidence or to test the
veracity of the prosecution case. The Court only has to see whether the
material placed on record raises a grave suspicion of commission of
an offence. Defence pleas, explanations, and contradictions are
matters for trial.
7. Further, at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to
eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the minute
details of the case. It is neither advisable nor permissible to adjudge
-4-
Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or acquittal. If the
criminal court, on consideration of the material submitted along with
the charge-sheet, finds that a grave suspicion exists regarding the
involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence alleged,
it is expected to frame the charge and put the accused on trial.
8. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that at the stage of
framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in
detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. At that
stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in
conviction. It was further held that strong suspicion, at the initial
stage, is sufficient to frame the charge and in such a situation it is not
open to contend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
9. Further, in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Ors., (2008) 14
SCC 239, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Trial Court is not required to examine or assess
the materials placed on record in detail, nor is it required to consider
the sufficiency of such materials to ultimately establish the offence
alleged against the accused persons.
-5-
Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
10. Similar principles have been reiterated in Union of India
v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 Cri LJ 154 (SC), State of M.P. v. S.B.
Johari, 2000 Cri LJ 944 (SC), and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh,
AIR 1977 SC 2018, wherein it has consistently been held that at the
stage of charge, the court is concerned only with the existence of a
prima facie case and not with proof beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The contention of Ld. Counsel for revisionist that the
Learned Magistrate passed the impugned order mechanically is
without merit. The order reflects consideration of the allegations of
entrustment, the role attributed to each accused, and the material
collected during investigation. At the stage of charge, a detailed
evaluation of evidence is neither required nor permissible.
12. As regards Section 408 IPC, the prosecution material
prima facie shows that the revisionist was the employee of the
complainant and was entrusted with jewellery articles in the course of
his employment. Allegations of subsequent shortages, non-return of
repair articles, and statements attributing custody of stock to
revisionist Ajay Sehgal constitute material which, if unrebutted, gives
rise to a strong suspicion of dishonest misappropriation of property
entrusted in the capacity of servants. Whether such entrustment and
dishonest intention are ultimately proved is a matter for trial, but at
-6-
Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
this stage the ingredients of Section 408 IPC cannot be said to be
absent. The contentions, raised by Ld. counsel for revisionist, are
subject matter of trial.
13. However, the position is different with respect to the
offence under Section 420 IPC. To attract Section 420 IPC, there must
be prima facie material to show deception of a person at the very
inception, coupled with a dishonest inducement leading to delivery of
property. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the
jewellery was handed over for repair in the ordinary course of
business of the shop. There is no specific allegation or material to
show that, at the time of accepting the ornaments for repair, the
accused had a pre-existing dishonest intention to deceive the customer.
The allegations essentially pertain to subsequent non-return or
misappropriation of entrusted property, which is more appropriately
covered under criminal breach of trust. In the absence of prima facie
material showing initial fraudulent or dishonest inducement, the
essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out at this stage.
14. Accordingly, while the material on record raises grave
suspicion warranting framing of charge under Section 408 IPC, the
same does not justify framing of charge under Section 420 IPC.
15. The revisional court does not sit as an appellate court to
-7-
Cr Rev 625/2025
AJAY SEHGAL Vs. STATE
re-appreciate evidence at the threshold. Interference is warranted only
where there is patent illegality or non-application of mind. In the
present case, the impugned order to the extent it directs framing of
charge under Section 408 IPC calls for no interference. However, the
direction to frame charge under Section 420 IPC is liable to be set
aside.
16. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands partly
allowed.
17. The impugned order is upheld insofar as it directs
framing of charge against the revisionists for the offence under
Section 408 IPC. The order directing framing of charge under Section
420 IPC is set aside. The Trial Court shall accordingly modify the
charge and proceed further in accordance with law on the basis of
charge under Section 408 IPC alone read with section 34 IPC.
18. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this
order.
19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Anuj Agrawal)
ASJ-03 (South East)
Saket Courts, Delhi/28.01.2026