Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1 / 6
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS.
Ct. Cases 786/2024
Ms Swings Digital Work LLp Vs. Trending Alive Agency
PS. (Burari)
ORDER
12.09.2025
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C,
moved on behalf of the complainant against the accused person/s for
registration of FIR and investigation of the case. The present case has
been filed by Kunika Saini as co-founder of M/s Swings Digital Work
LLP known as Moodswings Entertainment
(hereinafter referred to as the
complainant) against M/s. Trending Alive Agency and Ms. Ritabhari
Chokroborty
(hereinafter referred to as proposed accused persons 1 and 2
respectively).
2. It is the case of the complainant that proposed accused no. 01 is a
Kolkatta based company and proposed accused no. 02 is an highly
successful artiest in the industry of social media/television/actor
associated with proposed accused no. 01. It is the case of the complainant
that on 31.08.2023, the complainant sent a proposal to proposed accused
persons for some content creations and on 02.09.2023, the proposed
accused no. 1 sent the duly stamped invoice for digital campaign of
proposed accused no. 02 and in the said deal, several terms were agreed
between the parties qua the quality and nature of the content to be
supplied. It is the case of the complainant that the advanced payment of
Rs. 2,61,000/- was made to the proposed accused persons for the same
-- 1 of 6 --
2 / 6
but the quality of the contents provided was not up to the mark to the
extent that the audio language of bad quality. It is accordingly the case of
the complainant that the content as provided by proposed accused no. 02
was low grade and despite repeated communication, the same was not
corrected/rectified owing to which the same could not be used to attract
the Bengali audience.
3. Accordingly, it is the case of the complainant that the proposed
accused persons have committed the offences of cheating, dishonest
inducement/delivery of property, criminal breach of trust and they be
punished for the same. It is further the case of the complainant that in
view of the said illegal acts of cheating criminal breach of trust as
committed by the proposed accused person, he approached the police
officials vide written complaints sent to SHO PS Burari through Speed
post and copies of the same to Higher police officials (through regd.
Speed post) but no action was taken and hence, the present application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C, seeking investigation at the hands of the police.
4. On receipt of the present application, Status report was called in
the matter and the same had been filed by IO/SI Sudhir stating that the
the matters pertains of breach of contract and civil in nature. Accordingly,
it was stated that no cognizable offence was made out.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the allegations made
in the complaint, the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the
complainant and the status report filed by the IO.
6. Before proceeding any further, it is relevant to note the settled law
and the guidelines that are to weigh in the mind of the court while
deciding any application u/s 156 Cr. P.C. In this regard, it is important to
-- 2 of 6 --
3 / 6
note the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Shri Subhkaran Luharuka and Anr. v. State and Anr. (2010) 170 DLT
516;
“42. Thus, there are pre-requisites to be
followed by the complainant before
approaching the Magistrate under Section
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) of 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 assistance of the court or otherwise.
The issue of jurisdiction also becomes
important at that stage and cannot be
ignored.”
7. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
M/s Skippers Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State 2001 SCC OnLine Del 448 also
become relevant in this regard:-
“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
-- 3 of 6 --
4 / 6
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.”
8. In view of the settled law and from a careful scrutiny of the record,
the court is of the considered opinion that the facts as disclosed by the
complainant do not inspire the confidence of the court and it appears that
the complainant is trying to give criminal colour to a dispute which is
essentially civil in nature. Furthermore, on the basis of the record
available, it appears that all the facts constituting the alleged offence,
including the names and whereabouts of the proposed accused persons,
are well within the knowledge and the reach of the complainant. All the
documents including the video, the contract between the parties etc. are
within reach of the complainant and a copy of the same has even filed on
record. There does not appear any requirement of any scientific or
technical investigation in the matter as the nature of the matter is not
complex. There is no requirement of collection of evidence by the
investigating agency as the necessary and cogent evidence are either in
the reach of the complainant or can be summoned, through the court.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 / 6
9. At this juncture, the court is fructified by the observations of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya v. State of
U.P., and Ors. 2002 SCC OnLine All 1221 wherein it was observed that
:-
“21. The scheme of Cr. P.C. and the prevailing
circumstances require that the option to direct
the registration of the case and its investigation
by the police should be exercised where some
“investigation” is required, which is of a nature
that is not possible for the private complainant,
and which can only be done by the police upon
whom statute has conferred the powers
essential for investigation, for example
(1) where the full details of the accused are not
known to the complainant and the same can be
determined only as a result of investigation, or
(2) where recovery of abducted person or
stolen property is required to be made by
conducting raids or searches of suspected
places or persons, or
(3) where for the purpose of launching a
successful prosecution of the accused, evidence
is required to be collected and preserved. To
illustrate by example cases may be visualised
where for production before Court at the trial
(a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken
and kept sealed for fixing the
place of incident; or (b) recovery of case
property is to be made and kept sealed; or (c)
recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act;
or (d) preparation of inquest report; or (e)
witnesses are not known and have to be found
out or discovered through the process of
investigation.”
10. In view of the observations hereinabove and keeping in mind the
totality of the facts and circumstances, the court does not deem it fit to
invoke its discretionary power vested under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The
court is of the considered opinion that the complainant is required to
-- 5 of 6 --
6 / 6
prima facie establish the allegations by leading pre summoning evidence
u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the relief claimed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C is
declined. If at all there shall be any need for investigation, then the
provisions u/s 202 Cr.P.C may be resorted to.
11. In view of the above, the present application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C is
hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that nothing stated herein shall
tantamount to any observations upon the merits of the case.
12. Copy of the order be given dasti.
(Payal Singal)
JMFC-09/Central/THC
12.09.2025
-- 6 of 6 --