Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 20/2024
MOHD RAHEES Vs. MOHD SHAKIR
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 moved an application
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against the
accused for offences allegedly committed under Sections 406,
420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The allegations in the complaint are that the accused
purchased jewelry worth 1,80,481/- from the complainant on	₹
18.06.2022 and, towards partial discharge of his liability, issued a
cheque dated 10.07.2022 for 1,20,000/-, drawn on Bank of	₹
India, Hamdard Dawakhana Branch, Delhi. The complainant
presented the said cheque at his banker, Punjab National Bank,
Darya Ganj, Delhi, but it was dishonored with the remarks
"Account Blocked." The accused allegedly assured the
complainant of payment, but no amount was paid.
3. The complainant has further alleged that upon demanding
the outstanding amount, the accused not only failed to pay but
also issued threats, warning him against taking legal recourse. In
light of these events, the complainant has filed multiple
-- 1 of 4 --
complaints with the SHO, PS Darya Ganj, the DCP, and the
Commissioner of Police, but no action has been taken by the
authorities.
4. A Status Report has been filed by the police, stating that
during the inquiry, the accused, Mohd. Shakir, denied any
transaction with the complainant and stated that he never issued a
cheque to him. However, he admitted to having given a blank
cheque to one Mohd. Waseem for a separate monetary
transaction. During the inquiry, Mohd. Waseem acknowledged
that he had purchased jewelry worth 1,60,000/- from the	₹
complainant and had issued the blank cheque received from
Mohd. Shakir as security for the transaction. He further stated
that he had already paid 50,000/- in cash to the complainant and	₹
had assured him that the remaining amount would be cleared
soon.
5. The police report concludes that the dispute is commercial
in nature and pertains to a business transaction between the
complainant and Mohd. Waseem. It further reveals that the
alleged incident occurred at the complainant’s shop, which falls
under the jurisdiction of PS IP Estate and not PS Darya Ganj.
Additionally, the complainant has already instituted a civil suit
(CS SCI 1452/2023) for recovery of the amount, which is
currently pending before the Tis Hazari Courts.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M/s. Skipper Beverages
Pvt. Ltd. v. State (2001 IV AD (Delhi)), has underscored that the
power conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
judiciously and not as a routine matter. It has been held that
-- 2 of 4 --
where the complainant possesses sufficient material to
substantiate his case, there is no necessity for police investigation
unless specialized inquiry is required.
7. Similarly, in Subh Karan Luharuka v. State (2010(3) JCC
1972), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has clarified that before
directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate must be satisfied that the matter warrants police
involvement, particularly when the evidence is beyond the
complainant’s access or the identity of the accused is uncertain.
8. Furthermore, in Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander & Anr.
(Crl.M.C. 1463/2020 & Crl.M.A. 5732/2020), it has been
emphasized that judicial orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
must reflect due application of mind and should not be issued in
a mechanical manner.
9. In the present case, the allegations arise out of a
commercial transaction for which civil proceedings are already
pending. The identity of the accused is known to the
complainant, and there appears to be no need for technical
investigation or involvement of a specialized agency. The
available material does not justify directing the police to register
an FIR, particularly when the nature of the dispute is
predominantly civil.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not
find any sufficient ground to invoke the provisions of Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
However, the complainant is at liberty to pursue his remedy
-- 3 of 4 --
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by leading pre-summoning evidence.
If, at any stage, it is found that police investigation is necessary,
this Court may exercise its discretion under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
List for consideration of complaint u/s 200 CrPC on 22.05.2025.
11. The order be uploaded as per rules.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/07.02.2025
-- 4 of 4 --