Anurag Aggarwal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.117 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 ANURAG AGGARWAL

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking issuance of directions to the Learned Revisional Court for the expeditious disposal of Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2025, titled "Anurag Aggarwal vs. Rajender Kumar Jain and others." The said revision arises out of Complaint No. COMI 679 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023 and is presently pending before the Learned Revisional Court at Gurugram. The matter has remained at the stage of issuance of notice to the accused for over a year, warranting a direction for its time-bound adjudication.

2.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had longstanding friendly relations with accused Rajender Singh, who had earlier borrowed and repaid small amounts with interest, thereby gaining his trust. Later, Rajender Singh introduced him to co-accused Ramesh Tewari, Director of M/s Tewari & Gangadhar Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd., and persuaded him to lend 35 lakhs at 12% annual interest, with ₹ Rajender Singh acting as guarantor. Relying on their assurances, the petitioner transferred the said amount through RTGS to the company's account. Initially, the accused paid interest for some time, but subsequently defaulted, avoided communication, and eventually absconded after changing their addresses. Despite lodging a complaint with the police authorities at Gurugram, no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to file a criminal complaint before the JMIC, Gurugram, seeking registration of an FIR. 3.

In view of above mentioned contentions the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dealing with the revision petition, to dispose of the same in a time bound manner.

4.

The record has been perused carefully.

5.

In the present case the documents placed on record by the petitioners show that the complaint was moved by the petitioners on 23.11.2023 and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 06.02.2025, i.e. after a gap of more than fourteen months from the date of filing of complaint/application. The record further shows that against the order dated 06.02.2025, the petitioner filed revision petition in the Court of Sessions on 06.03.2025 and the above mentioned revision petition has not been decided by the learned Court of Sessions.

6.

Taking into consideration the fact that the issue with regard to decision on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a very small issue and the present petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dealing with the abovesaid revision petition, to give preferential treatment to the revision petition preferred by the petitioners and to decide the same, expeditiously by taking into consideration the guidelines meant for disposal of cases pertaining to old aged person/senior citizens. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram is hereby directed to make endeavour to dispose of the revision petition within one month from the next date fixed in the said revision petition.

7.

With the above mentioned observations the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

8.

All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU) 28.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No