Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 284/2025
MOHIT DHALL Vs. MOOL CHAND AGGARWAL
PS (Sarai Rohilla)
11.07.2026
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 175(3) BNSS
Present: Sh. Akhil Solanki, Ld. Counsel for the complainant
through VC.
Present order shall dispose of an application u/s
175(3) BNSS filed by the complainant which is also accompanied
by a complaint.
In brief, it is complainant’s case that the complainant
met the proposed accused persons in 2020 through a mutual friend.
Thereafter, the parties became close. The proposed accused
persons allegedly induced the complainant to offer financial
assistance to the tune of Rs. 10lacs in the form of a friendly loan
as they were undergoing financial difficulties. The proposed
accused persons had promised to repay the amount by December
2021. They also provided a security cheque bearing no. 796603
drawn on PNB Shastri Nagar Branch. Thereafter, the proposed
accused persons failed to repay the amount. Repeated assurances
were given to the complainant but no amount was paid back. In
the end, the complainant presented the cheque for clearing,
however, the same was returned with the remarks ‘Insufficient
Funds’. The complainant informed the proposed accused persons
but they did not pay heed and refused to pay the amount. Then, the
complainant sent complaints to the SHO, ACP and DCP, however,
no action was taken on them. Hence, the present application. Ld.
Counsel for the complainant has relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
and ors. AIR 1999 SC 1216, wherein the Court has held that
cheating may be committed in cases of monetary transactions also
where there was an intention not to repay. The Court had relied on
illustration (f) of Section 415 IPC.
Action taken report was called from the police. As
per the action taken report, the present dispute is a monetary
dispute between the parties. The proposed accused was also joined
in the enquiry and he has stated that only Rs.20,000/- remains to
be repaid to the complainant. It is further stated that a complaint
case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is also pending pertaining
the security cheque in question.
I have heard the submissions, perused the record and
the action taken report.
The powers of the magistrate to direct registration of
FIR are governed by Section 175(3) BNSS (earlier 156(3) Cr.P.C.).
The said power can be used where the police fail to or neglect to
take the necessary action on the information provided by a
complainant. However, such power must be exercised judiciously
and not in a mechanical manner. Where the entire facts are within
the knowledge of the complainant and he has all the evidence in
his possession, the requirement to pass orders u/s 175(3) BNSS
should ordinarily not arise.
In Ms. Skipper beverages P. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl.
L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the circumstances as to when the powers of
magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C ought to be exercised, has been
explained. It was held that:
"Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police
to register case and initiate investigation but this
power had to be exercised judiciously not in
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations
are not very serious and complainant himself in
possession of evidence to prove allegation, there should
be no need to pass order U/s 156 Cr.P.C. But,cases where
Magistrate is of view that nature of allegation is such that
complainant himself may not be in position to collect, and
produce evidence before court, and interest of justice
demand that police should step into to help complainant,
police assistance can be taken."
In the present case, the complainant has already
initiated a complaint u/s 138 NI Act against the proposed accused
persons. The said fact has nowhere been disclosed in the complaint
and came to light only in the action taken report. The said omission
on the part of the complainant appears to be intentional. Further,
the judgment relied upon by the complainant is distinguishable in
the present case as it has not been shown that the proposed accused
persons did not have intention to pay the complainant back from
the beginning. In the ATR, it has come that the proposed accused
persons have already repaid a substantial amount. Therefore, the
reliance placed on the judgment in
Rajesh Bajaj supra, does not
come to the aid of the complainant.
Be that as it may, the allegations pertain to non-
repayment of money which was taken on loan by the proposed
accused persons. The identity of the accused persons is already
known to the complainant and the facts of the case are already
within his knowledge. Further, the facts as put forth in the
complaint show that the allegations are based on documentary
evidence which is also in the possession of the complainant.
Hence, in the present case, there appears to be no requirement of
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
police assistance to investigate of collect evidence at this stage. If,
in future, any need arises for police assistance, the same can be
taken under section 225 BNSS. Accordingly, the present
application under section 175(3) BNSS stands dismissed.
The court takes cognizance of the complaint.
Accordingly, be put up for PSE on 24.09.2026.
(Rangat Ghirra)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/11.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --