Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 21/2024
MOHD RAHEES Vs. MOHD WASIM
07.02.2025
Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid mode.
Previous Reader of this court has not handed over complete
charge to the incumbent Reader till date.
Regular Stenographer of this Court is on first half day leave.
Undersigned is also working as 2nd Link JMFC to Ld. CJM,
Central for full day.
Present: Mr. Yashpal Bharti, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
complainant.
1. The complainant, Mohd. Rahees, has filed the present
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking directions for
the registration of an FIR against the accused persons for
offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 506, and 34
IPC. The complainant has stated that he is engaged in the
business of artificial, silver, and gold jewelry and had supplied
jewelry worth 1,80,000/- to Accused No. 1 in 2022. However,	₹
despite repeated requests and demands, the accused failed to
make the payment.
2. The complainant further alleges that he filed a civil suit for
recovery of the outstanding amount, which is currently pending
adjudication before the competent civil court at Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Subsequently, on 24.09.2022, the complainant was allegedly
abused by Accused No. 1 over the phone, and later that night, at
about 11:30 p.m., Accused No. 1, along with an associate, visited
his residence, abused and misbehaved with him, and threatened
him to withdraw the civil case. The complainant telephoned the
police helpline (100 number), but no immediate action was taken.
-- 1 of 4 --
3. The complainant has further alleged that on 22.07.2023, at
about 9:10 p.m., both accused persons again threatened him over
the phone to withdraw the civil case, failing which they would
kill him. The complainant claims to have informed the police and
was taken to PS Darya Ganj, where the police assured him that a
case would be registered against the accused persons. However,
no FIR was registered. The complainant also claims to have
video evidence of the incident dated 22.07.2023.
4. The complainant has submitted that he has approached the
SHO, PS Darya Ganj, the DCP, and the Commissioner of Police,
but despite repeated complaints, no action has been taken.
5. A Status Report has been filed by the police, which states
that a PCR call vide DD No. 109A was received on 24.09.2023
regarding threats, and SI Rambir Singh was assigned the inquiry.
It was found during the inquiry that the complainant and Accused
No. 1 had a monetary dispute and that the complainant had
already filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The Status Report further states that the
complainant failed to provide any recording of the alleged threats
at that time. Subsequently, another complaint was lodged by the
complainant, which was marked to ASI Tanveer for further
action. During this inquiry, the matter was mutually settled, and
the complainant confirmed that he had received 50,000/- from	₹
Accused No. 1, with an agreement that the balance amount of
1,60,000/- would be paid within six months.	₹
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Skipper Beverages
Pvt. Ltd. v. State (2001 IV AD (Delhi)) has emphasized that the
-- 2 of 4 --
power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not
be exercised mechanically. It has been held that where the
complainant already possesses sufficient evidence, the police
should not be directed to investigate unless there is a requirement
for technical expertise or specialized inquiry.
7. In Subh Karan Luharuka v. State (2010(3) JCC 1972), it
was observed that before directing the registration of an FIR
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must be satisfied
that the case warrants police investigation, especially when
evidence is beyond the complainant’s reach or the accused's
identity is unknown.
8. The Delhi High Court in Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander &
Anr. (Crl.M.C. 1463/2020 & Crl.M.A. 5732/2020) reiterated that
orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be passed in a
routine manner and must demonstrate judicial application of
mind. Furthermore, it was held that a Magistrate must consider
whether an investigation is essential for unearthing material facts
and whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.
9. In the present case, the complainant has provided details of
his grievances, and it is evident that the dispute primarily stems
from a business transaction. The complainant has already
pursued legal remedies by filing a civil suit for recovery and
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The complainant also claims to have video evidence of the
alleged threats. However, no technical or specialized police
investigation appears necessary, as all the facts are within the
control and knowledge of the complainant.
-- 3 of 4 --
10. Additionally, the parties have already reached a mutual
settlement during police inquiry, wherein the complainant
confirmed the receipt of 50,000/- and agreed that the remaining	₹
1,60,000/- would be paid in six months. This further indicates	₹
that the primary nature of the dispute remains civil, with a
possible overlap of allegations under criminal law.
11. In view of the legal precedents discussed above and
considering that the complainant has already availed of
appropriate legal remedies, no grounds are made out for directing
the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Instead, the complainant is at liberty to lead pre-summoning
evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
12. Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
is dismissed. However, the complainant may pursue his remedy
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by leading evidence to substantiate his
claims. If, at any stage, the necessity of police investigation is
made out, this Court may exercise discretion under Section 202
Cr.P.C. List for consideration of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on
22.05.2025.
13. The order be uploaded as per rules.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/07.02.2025
-- 4 of 4 --