The Delhi High Court has held that courts should ordinarily allow complainants to lead pre-summoning evidence even when allegations appear to arise from a civil dispute or breach of contract.
Justice Manoj Jain delivered the ruling on May 20, 2026, in M/s Progressive Finlease Ltd v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CRL.M.C. 7050/2023).
Complaint Alleged Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy
The petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 421, 422 and 120-B of the IPC.
The petitioner also moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of an FIR.
However, the Magistrate held that the allegations disclosed only a breach of agreement. According to the court, the dispute was civil in nature and had merely been given a criminal colour.
The Trial Court declined cognizance and dismissed the complaint. It also observed that allowing pre-summoning evidence would serve no purpose.
Revisional Court Upheld the Dismissal
The petitioner challenged the order before the Sessions Court.
The Revisional Court agreed with the Trial Court and dismissed the revision petition on July 25, 2023. It held that the allegations revealed only a breach of contract and did not disclose any criminal offence.
The petitioner then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution.
Respondents Opposed the Petition
Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 argued that the complaint failed to disclose any criminality.
They contended that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court had correctly dismissed the proceedings.
High Court Calls Findings Premature
The High Court disagreed with the approach adopted by the courts below.
Justice Jain observed that the complainant should have received an opportunity to place evidence on record before the courts reached a conclusion on criminality.
The Court held that the findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court were premature.
It further observed that the line separating a civil dispute from criminal conduct is often very thin. Therefore, courts must exercise caution before rejecting complaints at the threshold.
Opportunity to Lead Evidence Must Be Given
The Court clarified that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC does not automatically justify dismissal of the complaint.
Even if the court declines to order an FIR, it should ordinarily allow the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence and attempt to establish the alleged criminal offence.
The Court emphasized that such an opportunity becomes particularly important where the nature of the dispute remains debatable.
Matter Sent Back to Trial Court
The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the petitioner would be satisfied if the Trial Court granted an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence.
Accepting the submission, the High Court directed the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to lead pre-summoning evidence.
The Trial Court must thereafter consider the material and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
No Opinion on Merits
The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
It also directed the Trial Court not to get influenced by any observations contained in the order.
The Court further directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on June 2, 2026, at 10:00 AM.
