Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 6Ct. Cases433/2024
SANDEEP GUPTA Vs. SUSHILA ANDORS
PS: (Nabi Karim)
11.08.2025
Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid mode.
Present: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
complainant along with applicant/ complainant.
1. Matter is listed for arguments on application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
With consent, arguments heard on the application.
2. The present order disposes of an application filed by the
complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 seeking directions to the SHO, P.S. Nabi Karim, to register an
FIR against the proposed accused for offences punishable under
Sections 323, 341, 506, 448, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant, carefully
perused the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Action Taken
Report (ATR) filed by the police, and considered the position of law
governing the exercise of powers under Section 156(3) CrPC.
4. The application discloses that the dispute arises from the use
and possession of a shop situated at the ground floor of Property No.
10578/34, Gali No. 2, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi, which is
stated to be owned by the father of the complainant. It is alleged that
the proposed accused, who reside on the first floor of the said
property, have been repeatedly creating obstructions, making threats,
quarrelling, abusing the complainant and his customers, and making
obscene gestures. On 06.02.2024, they allegedly came to the shop,
took photographs and videos of the complainant, extended threats to
vacate the shop, and threatened false implication in serious criminal
-- 1 of 3 --
cases including offences under the POCSO Act. A PCR call was made,
the police arrived, and the matter was amicably settled at the police
station on the same day.
5. The ATR filed by SI Harsh Kumar records that both parties
were examined during enquiry. One of the proposed accused stated
that the property belongs to their family and had been rented out years
ago, and that photographs were taken for the purpose of a pending
court case. It was further stated that the altercation occurred when the
complainant misbehaved during the said act of photography. The ATR
concludes that the dispute is essentially of civil nature relating to
possession and title over the property, and that the allegations of
threats pertain to non-cognizable offences, thus not warranting
registration of FIR.
6. It is settled law as laid down in M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt.
Ltd. v. State (2001 IV AD (Delhi)) that the power under Section
156(3) CrPC is to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically, and
that if the complainant already possesses sufficient evidence to prove
his case, the Magistrate need not direct a police investigation. In Subh
Karan Luharuka & Anr. v. State & Anr. (2010 (3) JCC 1972), it was
held that before directing investigation under Section 156(3), the
Magistrate must be satisfied that police assistance is essential,
particularly where the identities of the accused are unknown or the
evidence is beyond the reach of the complainant. The Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander (Crl.M.C. 1463/2020)
reiterated, following Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6
SCC 287, that the complainant must demonstrate prior compliance
with Section 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC, support the application with an
affidavit, and establish that the complaint discloses the ingredients of a
cognizable offence. Orders under Section 156(3) must be reasoned,
-- 2 of 3 --
reflecting application of mind and justifying the necessity of police
investigation.
7. In the present matter, the identities of the proposed accused are
known, the incident has already been the subject of police intervention
through a PCR call, and the parties had allegedly settled the matter on
the same day. The allegations, when read as a whole, appear
intertwined with a pending civil dispute over possession and
ownership of the shop. The complainant has not demonstrated the
existence of any material evidence inaccessible to him without police
assistance, nor does the nature of the allegations require recovery,
custodial interrogation, or specialised forensic examination. The ATR
further indicates the absence of
prima facie material showing
commission of a cognizable offence requiring immediate registration
of FIR.
8. Having regard to the facts of the case, the contents of the ATR,
and the settled legal principles, I am of the view that no ground is
made out for exercising powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. The
application under Section 156(3) CrPC is accordingly dismissed.
9. Put up for consideration of application u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on
27.01.2026.
The order be uploaded as per rules.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/11.08.2025
-- 3 of 3 --