Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 18 Ct. Cases 294/2025
HARNEET KAUR TALWAR Vs. STATE THROUGH SHO /0 (Kashmere
Gate)
02.06.2025
Present: Sh. Sumit Shokeen, Ld. counsel for complainant through VC.
Arguments on application u/s 175(3) BNSS heard.
Put up for order at 4:00 PM.
(Vaibhav Garg)
JMFC-11/Central/THC
02.06.2025
At 4:00 PM
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/s 175(3) BNSS
1. This is an application u/S 175(3) BNSS seeking a direction for
registration of FIR filed by the complainant.
2. It is submitted that on 18.01.2025 at around 11:30 AM, the
complainant visited her above-mentioned shop and warehouses and was
shocked and surprised to see that the locks have been changed without here
knowledge or consent and unauthorized CCTV cameras have been installed
after damaging the cameras installed by the Complainant and her husband.
The Complainant was obstructed by two armed Sikh men who were present
in the above-mentioned shop and they were claiming that the shop
belonged Sarabjit Singh Sandhu @ Sabby i.e. the Respondent No. 07
herein. These alleged claims were immediately refuted by the Complainant
and the Complainant entered into her shop. It is further stated that on
18.01.2025 at around 11:30 AM, the Complainant visited her above-
-- 1 of 6 --
mentioned shop and warehouses and was shocked and surprised to see that
the locks have been changed without her knowledge or consent and
unauthorized CCTV cameras have been installed after damaging the
cameras installed by the Complainant and her husband. The Complainant
was obstructed by two armed Sikh men who were present at the above-
mentioned shop and they were claiming that the shop belonged Sarabjit
Singh Sandhu @ Sabby i.e the Respondent No. 07 herein. These alleged
claims were immediately refuted by the Complainant and the Complainant
entered into her shop. It is further stated that that the Complainant
immediately went to her said warehouses and she was completely shocked
and surprised to see that most of the stock of their business worth crores of
rupees have been sold by these Respondents/Accused persons in
connivance with each other. Upon further inquiries, she was informed that
one Sumardeep Singh Sandhu @ Sunny with his son (Respondent Nos. 05
& 08) is also frequently visiting our shop and is deriving all the profits
since 2-2.5 months. These accused persons have no right whatsoever on our
business and said properties. The complainant has a copy of the CCTV
footages to substantiate the offences committed by the Respondents. He
further stated that It is submitted that the Complainant immediately dialled
100 and 112 number call multiple times but the number was busy and the
calls could not be connected. Accordingly, the driver of the Complainant
was also trying 100/112 calls and the complaint was made. Thereafter, the
Complainant went to the Kashmiri Gate police station and gave her
complaint but neither receiving was given to her nor the Complaint was
taken from her despite repeated requests. Having no other option, a copy of
the complaint was sent by her to the police officials through emails dated
18.01.2025 and 19.01.2025 and on their whatsapp.
-- 2 of 6 --
3. It is submitted that those two sikh men made some phone calls,
and after some time the Respondent Nos. 04 to 09 came to the said
properties and the Respondent No. 07 & 08 physically assaulted the
Complainant by touching her chest area and puller her clothes and abused
her with utmost filthy language which is not being reproduced herein being
unparliamentary (detailed in the complaint) and the Complainant was
pushed out of her shop by the Respondent Nos. 07 & 08 and others.
4. That the Complainant immediately went to her said
warehouses and she was completely shocked and surprised to see that most
of the stock of their business worth crores of rupees have been sold by
these Respondents/Accused persons in connivance with each other. Upon
further inquiries, she was informed that one Sumardeep Singh Sandhu @
Sunny with his son (Respondent Nos. 05 & 08) is also frequently visiting
our shop and is deriving all the profits since 2-2.5 months. These accused
persons have no right whatsoever on our business and said properties. The
complainant has a copy of the CCTV footages to substantiate the offences
committed by the Respondents.
2. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that she is
resident of Rohini and wife of late Sh. Kawaljit Singh Talwar. Her husband
passed away on 05/10/2024 after prolong medical ailments. During his life
span, the deceased was running an automobile spare parts business under
the name "Spare Mart" for 20 years. During the time of his medical illness,
some criminal elements targeted their business and properties. On
18/01/2025, she visited the shop and found that the locks has been changed
and CCTV cameras has been installed without her consent. The alleged
persons namely Gurpreet Singh and Sarab Jit Singh Sandhu @ Sabby met
her at the shop and the alleged persons threaten her.
-- 3 of 6 --
3. ATR perused filed by the IO concerned. As per ATR, The dispute
is regarding distribution and possession of property of deceased Kawaljit
Singh. The matter is civil in nature and already pending before the civil court.
No cognizable offiece is found to be committed in the matter.
4. Detailed arguments were heard on the application under section
175 (3) BNSS. This Court has also perused the entire record.
5. The application is accompanied with an affidavit in terms of the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of UP,
(2015) 6 SCC 287. Perusal of the complainant as well as the affidavit reveals
that the complainant has averred in his complaint and has placed supporting
documents on record to the effect that he had approached the concerned Police
Station as well as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and thus has approached
the court after exhausting the remedy available under Sections 173(1) BNSS
as well as under 173 (4) BNSS.
6. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Skipper Beverages (P)
Ltd. vs. State, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 448, has guided the Magistrates in the
following words:
“7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a 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 complaint 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. The discretion ought to be exercised after
proper 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 complaint himself may not be in a position to collect and produce
evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the
police should step in to help the complaint. The police assistance can
be taken by a Magistrate even under Sec. 202(1) of the Code after
taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter
XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme page 129
titled “
Suresh
Chand Jain v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.””
7. In
Subhkaran Luharuka vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2010
-- 4 of 6 --
SCC OnLine Del 2324, the Delhi High Court laid down the following
guidelines for dealing with applications u/S 175(3) BNSS and complaints filed
u/S 200 CrPC:
Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders under Section 156(3) of the
Code, at the outset, the Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court,
the Complainant did approach the police officer in charge of the Police Station
having jurisdiction over the area for recording the information available with him
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the person/persons arrayed
as an accused in the Complainant. It should also be examined what action was
taken by the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the Police, when approached by
the Complainant under Section 154(3) of the Code.
The Magistrate should then form his own opinion whether the facts mentioned in
the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons
arrayed in the Complaint which can be tried in his jurisdiction. He should also
satisfy himself about the need for investigation by the Police in the matter. A
preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an SHO and if no such enquiry
has been done by the SHO, then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to
consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate must apply his mind
and such application of mind should be reflected in the Order passed by him.
Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be
recorded in writing`, a status report by the police is to be called for before passing
final orders.
The Magistrate, when approached with a Complaint under Section 200 of the
Code, should invariably proceed under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the
Complaint, recording evidence and then deciding the question of issuance of
process to the accused. In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to
postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to call for a police report
under Section 202 of the Code.
Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code
when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a
Complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take
cognizance of the Complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before
passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself
about the pre- requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied
that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in the matter for collection of
evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be
produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of
complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State
agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons as to why he
intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code.
8. The law on the point of Section 156(3) CrPC is not res integra
anymore. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
and reiterated in Babu Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka (2022) 5 SCC 639.
9. It is amply clear that Section 175(3) BNSS of the Code aims at
-- 5 of 6 --
curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities
in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations. The
provision empowers the Magistrate to issue directions in this regard,
however, the Magistrate is also required to be cautious that this provision is
not misused by the complainants to get police cases registered in non-serious
matters. In such cases, the Magistrate himself can hold an 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 complaint. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in
those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the
reach of complaint or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for
some recovery of article or discovery of fact.
10. Thus the bare perusal of allegations indicate the commission of
a cognizable offence. Thus, in the circumstances of the case and seriousness
of the allegations made, it becomes imperative that an investigation is carried
out by the police authority in order unearth the complete truth and evidences.
11. Accordingly, the application u/S 175(3) BNSS stands allowed
and the SHO PS Kashmere Gate is directed to register FIR under the relevant
provisions and carry out investigation thereupon.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the SHO concerned for
necessary action.
13. Put up for filing of a compliance report on 07.07.2025.
(Vaibhav Garg)
JMFC-11/Central/THC/02.06.2025
-- 6 of 6 --