Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 9 Ct. Cases 185/2025
SANJEET KUMAR YADAV Vs. CHANCHAL MALHOTRA
PS (Rajinder Nagar)
21.01.2026
Present: Sh. Ayush Kaushik, Ld. counsel for the complainant joined
through VC.
Today, matter is fixed for orders on the application u/s 175(3)
BNSS.
1. The complainant has filed the complaint u/s 223 BNSS alongwith
an application u/s 175 (3) BNSS. On the application of the complainant, status
report was called from the SHO, PS concerned. The status report was filed by
IO SI Vikesh.
2. I have gone through the complaint, the annexures and the status
report / ATR filed by the police. The complainant has filed the present complaint
against the respondents / proposed accused person. Briefly stated the complainant
has alleged that complainant and proposed accused had friendly relations from
the college. Proposed accused represented that she had experience in garment
and clothing industries and she invited the complainant to invest money in her
garments business. It is further alleged that on 10.12.2024, complainant paid a
sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- to respondent with the bonafide intent of starting a clothing
business together and upon receiving his aforesaid amount, respondent rented a
two room property with a hall situated in Old Rajinder Nagar. It is further stated
that respondent deliberately supplied defective articles to complainant due to
which complainant suffered severe financial loss. It is further stated that on
10.01.2025, complainant visited the rental premises regarding the refund of the
hard earn money but respondent assaulted the complainant and his friend who
accompany the complainant. It is further alleged that after the repeated demands,
respondent did not accept the defective goods and did not refund. Thereafter,
complainant approached the concerned PS but not action was taken and
subsequently, complaint to DCP concerned was made but no action was taken.
Hence, present application.
3. I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant. It is settled proposition of law that the power of the Magistrate to
give directions u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C is discretionary and the same has to be exercised
only when there is requirement of investigation / custodial interrogation by the
police. If the evidence is within the reach of complainant, usually the directions
u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C are not given. The word used in the section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is
“may”, whereas the word used in section 154 Cr.P.C is “shall”. The wording of
Contd...2
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
these section clearly implies that the police is bound to register an FIR when an
information regarding cognizable offence is given to the police, whereas the
Magistrate is not bound to give directions u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, even though the
complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence as the Magistrate
has to see whether the investigation by the police is required or not in the given
case.
4. In the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Subharkaran
Luharka v. State DoD 9-7-2010 delivered in Crl. 6122/23/05, it has been held by
the Hon'ble High Court that if the evidence is within the reach of the complainant
and no investigation by the police is required, the Magistrate should ask the
complainant to lead the evidence rather than giving directions to the police for
registration of FIR u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
5. In the another judgment titled as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
v. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as
under :
“It is true that Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the Code empowers to
Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate
investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper
grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the
allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in
possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no
need to pass orders under Section 156 (3) of the Code. This discretion
ought to be exercised after application of mind and only in those cases
where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations
is such that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect
and produce evidence before the court and interest of justice demand
that the police should step in the help of the complainant”.
6. Also in Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of MP 2001 (1) AD (Crl.)
S.C. 34' Hon'ble Apex Court stated that “ there are pre-requisites to the followed
by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate U/s 156 (3) of the code
which is a discretionary remedy as the provision proceeds with the word “May”.
The magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so. He should pass
orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of
cognizable offences and also about necessity of police investigation for digging
out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured
without the assistance of the police. It is thus not necessary that in every case
where a complaint has been filed under section 200 of the code the Magistrate
should direct the police to investigate the crime merely because an application
has also been filed under section 156 (3) if the code even though the evidence to
be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning
witnesses, may be with the assist ance of the court or otherwise. This issue of
Contd...3
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
jurisdiction also becomes important at that stage and cannot be ignored”.
7. In the present case, complainant is aggrieved that contract was honoured
by the proposed accused, however, no documents with respect to any contract
has been filed. It appears to be only a civil dispute and the allegations that
complainant was assaulted have not been corroborated. Further, the complainant
is aware about the name and address of the proposed accused person. From the
material on record, the entire evidence is within the reach of the complainant and
no investigation by the police is required at this stage. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, the application u/s 175 (3) BNSS deserves to be dismissed and therefore,
the same is dismissed. Let the complainant be granted an opportunity to lead pre
summoning evidence in support of his allegations. Be put up on 23.04.2026 for
pre summoning evidence.
(PREETI)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03
(Central),THC,Delhi
21.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --