Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 42
CC No.246-2023
NEETI Vs. SARLA DEVI
/2023 (Subzi Mandi)
04.06.2026
Present: Sh. Devansh Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Be passed over till 4.30 p.m. for orders.
At 04:20 pm
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the complainant
u/S 156 (3) CrPC seeking issuance of direction to the SHO concerned to register
FIR against the accused/alleged persons.
Breifly stated, the complainant has alleged that on 19.01.2023, while
present in Court Room No. 245, Tis Hazari Courts, after attending hearings in her
pending cases, she was abused in filthy language and threatened by the proposed
accused persons, namely Sarla, Rahul Kumar and Karan Kumar @ Ankush
Kumar, within the court premises. It is further alleged that threats were also
extended to her advocate with dire consequences if he appeared for her in future
proceedings. The complainant claims to have sent written complaints to various
police authorities by speed post, but no action was taken, compelling her to file the
instant application.
The Action Taken Report has been filed by SI Deepak Kumar, duly
forwarded by the Incharge, PP, THC. As per the enquiry, the complainant was
contacted and asked to provide supporting material such as audio or video
recordings or any other evidence of the alleged abuse and threats; however, she
could not furnish any such material. The accused persons were also examined and
-- 1 of 3 --
they denied the allegations, stating that similar complaints have earlier been made
by the complainant to pressurize them in pending matrimonial and maintenance
proceedings. It has also been noted that a separate complaint case bearing Ct. Case
No. 1878/2022 on similar allegations is already pending before the Court. On the
basis of the enquiry conducted so far, the enquiry officer has opined that no
cognizable offence is made out.
During the course of arguments, the facts narrated above were
reiterated by the counsel for the complainant which are not repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case
titled
M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd. vs State, 92 (2001) DLT 217 has held that:
“10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness
on the part of the police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking
up investigations, even in those cases where the same are warranted. The Section
empower the Magistrate to issue directions in this regard but this provision should
not be permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police cases registered
even in those cases which are not very serious in nature and the Magistrate himself
can hold enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required.
Therefore, a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an order under
Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the
mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in
those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach
of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some
recovery of article or discovery of fact.”
The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC is well settled and the power to
direct registration of FIR is discretionary and is to be exercised judiciously, only
where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence and
police investigation is necessary. In the present case, the allegations primarily
relate to verbal abuse and threats allegedly extended within court premises. At this
-- 2 of 3 --
stage, apart from the bare assertions of the complainant, no independent or
supporting material has been placed on record. Despite opportunity during
enquiry, the complainant could not provide any contemporaneous evidence such
as audio/video recording or names of independent witnesses present at the time of
the alleged incident, during the enquiry. It is also relevant that similar disputes
between the parties are already pending before competent courts and a separate
complaint case on comparable allegations is also stated to be pending before this
Court. In such circumstances, directing registration of FIR at this stage is not
warranted.
Thus, in view of the above discussion and considering the totality of
circumstances, no ground is made out to allow the present application as there is
nothing new which can be unearthed by directing another investigation into the
matter. Needless to say if the need for police investigation arises in future,
recourse to provisions of Section 202 CrPC could be taken at the appropriate
stage. Accordingly, the present application filed by the complainant/applicant u/S
156(3) CrPC stands disposed of as dismissed. However, an opportunity is granted
to the complainant to lead presummoning evidence.
Needless to say that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case
Put up for PSE on 21.08.2026.
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/04.06.2026
-- 3 of 3 --