Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 41
CC No.571-2023
TARUN KOHLI Vs. RANJITA SAWHNEY AND ORS
/2023 (Subzi Mandi)
08.05.2026
Present: Complainant with Ld. Proxy Counsel.
Matter is listed for orders on application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he has been recently
engaged and he undertakes to file the vakalatnama during the course of the day.
Vide this order, I shall dispose the application moved by the
complainant under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking issuance of directions to the SHO
concerned for registration of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 380,
384, 406, 420, 506, 34 and 120-B IPC against the proposed accused persons.
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he and the proposed
accused persons, namely Smt. Ranjita Sawhney and Smt. Dimpy Arora, are real
siblings and that the proposed accused persons are married and residing in their
respective matrimonial homes, whereas the complainant was residing with his
parents at property bearing No. 1351, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. It has been
alleged that the said property was owned by the complainant’s mother, Late Smt.
Bhushan Kohli, who executed a Will in favour of the complainant, thereby
bequeathing the said property exclusively to him and accordingly, after her
demise, the property allegedly came into exclusive possession of the complainant,
and the complainant’s father, Late Sh. Subhash Chander Kohli, was residing with
him.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that his father, Late Sh.
Subhash Chander Kohli, was maintaining multiple bank accounts, FDRs, savings
-- 1 of 5 --
schemes and lockers in various banks including Punjab & Sind Bank, Oriental
Bank of Commerce (now merged with PNB) and Bank of Maharashtra. The
complaint contains detailed particulars of these accounts, FDRs and lockers,
including account numbers, branch locations and the existence of gold jewellery,
cash and other valuables kept therein. It has been further submitted that Late Sh.
Subhash Chander Kohli expired on 04.11.2018, leaving behind the complainant
and the proposed accused persons as his legal heirs. The complainant has claimed
that prior to the death of his father, he was the nominee in certain bank accounts
and FDRs. However, the proposed accused persons, acting in collusion and by
exercising undue influence, got themselves nominated in the said accounts and
FDRs. The complainant has further alleged that after the demise of his father, the
proposed accused persons withdrew substantial amounts from the bank accounts
of the deceased and also got FDRs prematurely encashed. Specific details of
transfers are pleaded, including RTGS and bank transfers of Rs. 8,90,000/-, Rs.
1,01,375/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- on different dates, as well as premature encashment
of FDRs of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- by proposed accused no. 1 as
nominee.
It has been further alleged that apart from the bank accounts and
FDRs, the proposed accused persons also removed gold jewellery from the lockers
of the deceased maintained in Punjab & Sind Bank and Oriental Bank of
Commerce, as well as took possession of the car of the deceased father of the
complainant, cheque books, pass books, mobile phone and other articles. The
complainant has also alleged that the proposed accused persons, despite being
only nominees, dishonestly misappropriated the estate of the deceased instead of
distributing it amongst the legal heirs, and thereby committed offences punishable
under Sections 380, 384, 406, 420, 506, 34 and 120-B IPC. It has been further
alleged that on several occasions, when the complainant requested division of the
money, jewellery and FDRs, the proposed accused persons refused and threatened
him with false implication in criminal cases and with dire consequences.
-- 2 of 5 --
It has been further submitted that the complainant came to know of
the bank transactions from SMS alerts appearing on the mobile phone earlier used
by his deceased father. Jurisdiction of this Court is claimed on the basis that the
concerned bank branches are situated within the territorial limits of P.S. Subzi
Mandi.
Action taken report has been filed by SI Sumit. The Action Taken
Report placed on record reflects that both parties were examined by the police.
The proposed accused persons claim that Late Sh. Subhash Chander Kohli had
debarred the complainant and had made the accused persons joint nominees. The
police, after enquiry, opined that the dispute is a family dispute regarding
succession and entitlement, and that no cognizable offence is disclosed.
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.”
-- 3 of 5 --
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, even if taken
at their face value and accepted in entirety, disclose a dispute regarding
distribution of the estate of a deceased person, including bank deposits, FDRs,
lockers and movable assets. The facts pleaded by the complainant themselves
show that the parties are siblings and legal heirs, asserting rival and competing
claims over the same assets. It is a settled position of law that nomination does not
confer ownership, and withdrawal of money by a nominee from the account of a
deceased person does not, by itself, constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating
unless dishonest intention at the inception of entrustment is specifically pleaded
and prima facie established. The complaint is conspicuously silent on any
entrustment by the complainant to the accused persons or any fraudulent
inducement practised upon him. The allegations regarding withdrawal of amounts,
encashment of FDRs and removal of jewellery are matters which are amenable to
adjudication by a civil court by way of a suit for partition, rendition of accounts or
recovery. The criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a substitute for
civil remedies in inheritance and succession disputes.
Furthermore, all material relied upon by the complainant is
documentary in nature and already within his knowledge and possession. No
custodial interrogation, recovery, forensic analysis or specialised police
investigation is shown to be necessary at this stage.
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
-- 4 of 5 --
156(3) CrPC stands disposed of as dismissed. However, one opportunity is granted
to the complainant to lead PSE to prove his allegations contained in complaint u/S
200 CrPC. The complainant can, if so advised, substantiate his allegations by
leading evidence before the Court.
Put up for PSE on 20.07.2026.
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/08.05.2026
-- 5 of 5 --