Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 191/2023
GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. MOHD ATIF AND ANR
19.08.2025
Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid mode.
Present: None.
Matter is listed for orders on application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
Put up for order at 04:00 PM
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/19.08.2025
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Nothing remains pending in present case.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/19.08.2025
-- 1 of 4 --
Ct. Cases 191/2023
GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. MOHD ATIF AND ANR
19.08.2025
ORDER
Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid mode.
Present: None.
1. The applicant seeks a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC for
registration of FIR alleging that, during his travel abroad in June–July
2022, proposed accused persons/respondents broke open locks of
ground-floor portion of property no. 3573, Gali Jatwara, Darya Ganj,
removed machinery/articles and raised construction after demolition.
He relies on emails/complaints addressed to the police authorities,
videos dated 01.06.2022 and 19.07.2022, photographs, and statements
of neighbors recorded during local enquiry. The application is
supported by an affidavit.
2. An Action Taken Report (ATR) dated 17.04.2023 has been filed
by SI Sonal Raj, PS Darya Ganj. The ATR notes (i) registered sale
deeds first in favour of some of the proposed accused
persons/respondents and thereafter further conveyance, (ii) statements
of local residents acknowledging complainant’s earlier possession of a
shop at the site, (iii) the claim of the present owners that only debris
existed when possession was taken, and (iv) pendency of civil
proceedings—complainant’s suit under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act (with an interim order dated 24.11.2022) and proceedings
regarding construction before other fora. The ATR concludes that the
dispute is essentially civil and that no cognizable offence is made out
at this stage.
3. I have considered the complaint, the documents, the ATR and
the written submissions. The law on Section 156(3) CrPC is settled.
Directions under Section 156(3) are judicial orders requiring
application of mind and cannot be issued mechanically (Priyanka
Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287; Subh Karan Luharuka
-- 2 of 4 --
& Anr. v. State & Anr., 2010 (3) JCC 1972; Alok Kumar v. Harsh
Mander, Crl.M.C. 1463/2020, Del HC). The remedy is ordinarily
invoked where police investigation is necessary because material
evidence lies beyond the complainant’s reach or the accused are
unidentified. If the complainant possesses sufficient primary material,
the proper course is to proceed under Chapter XV CrPC (M/s Skipper
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi)).
4. The complainant has approached the SHO and senior officers
(Sections 154(1)/(3) CrPC) and has supported his averments by
affidavit. However, even assuming such compliance, the present
record does not warrant a direction to register FIR. The parties are
identified; their roles are attributed; the complainant relies upon
materials already in his possession or readily procurable—emails sent
contemporaneously, videos/photographs of the site, neighbors who
witnessed his earlier possession, rent documents, and the police-
recorded statements. These are all matters the complainant can place
in pre-summoning evidence under Sections 200/202 CrPC. The case
therefore does not present a situation where evidence is inaccessible
without police powers of investigation as contemplated in Subh Karan
Luharuka (supra).
5. On the ingredients of the alleged offences, at this stage the
dispute predominantly turns on competing claims of possession and
title flowing from registered sale deeds and the timing/legality of
demolition/construction. Whether the complainant’s possession
subsisted on the relevant dates, what specific movable articles were
allegedly removed, by whom, and with what dishonest intention—are
all fact issues that require proof through the complainant’s own
testimony, production of receipts/inventory (if any), and examination
of neighbors. The materials presently placed are insufficient to
demonstrate the necessity of police investigation as the first step.
6. The pendency of a civil suit under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act with an interim order does not, by itself, bar criminal law.
-- 3 of 4 --
However, it is a relevant circumstance while assessing whether a
police-led investigation is presently indispensable. In view of the
documentary conveyances, rival possession claims, and materials
already within the complainant’s control, directing registration of FIR
at this stage would be premature and risks converting a civil dispute
into a criminal investigation without the complainant first laying a
foundational record through his own sworn evidence.
7. For these reasons, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC is
rejected and disposed of accordingly. The order be uploaded as per
rules.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/19.08.2025
-- 4 of 4 --