Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 1394/2023
VEENA KUMARI Vs. SAURABH AND ORS
PS: Karol Bagh
20.03.2026
Present: None for complainant.
1. Arguments already heard on behalf of complainant. Now, the court
will proceed upon adjudicating upon the application.
2. In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that, complainant along
with her husband owns shops bearing No. 4225/4227, Ganga Mandi Marg, Ground
floor, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. Accused no. 1 and accused no. 2
were tenants in the shops of complainant in the year 2018. Complainant recovered
the possession of shop from the accused persons through a decree in her favour in a
civil suit. However, as soon as the Bailiff left after handing over possession of
shops to the complainant on 16.03.2023, accused no. 1 had placed a huge counter
and a chair in front of complainant’s shops to block the entrance of the shops.
Accused no. 1 started abusing and threatening the complainant. Thereafter, on
18.03.2023, accused no. 1 placed iron cages in front of the shops of complainant
when complainant requested him to remove the blockage from the entrance of
shop, accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 started pushing the complainant, pulling her hair
and abusing her. On the said day, accused no. 1 also threatened to kill the
complainant. Thereafter, on 24.03.2023, when complainant was trying to open the
shops, accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 threatened her of her life. Accused No. 2 and 3
Ct. Cases 1394/2023 VEENA KUMARI Vs. SAURABH AND ORS Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
blocked the access of the shops of complainant and prevented the complainant from
installing CCTV Cameras and from white washing of her shops. Further, on
12.05.2023, when complainant again tried to open the shop, one employee of the
accused no. 1 on his instructions threw dirty water near the complainant and one
other person. Further, to outrage the modesty of the complainant, he also shouted
“usko bhi le ja khush kar dega tujhko bistar pe”. It is averred that despite having
legal rights, complainant is deprived of access to her shops and have been abused,
harassed and threatened by accused persons. The complainant alleges that the
proposed accused persons have committed offences u/s
341/352/354/354D/503/506/509 r/w Section 120B IPC. He further submits that he
filed complaint against the alleged accused person to the concerned PS, but no
action has been taken. Thus, the complainant has filed the present application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C seeking registration of FIR in the present case.
3. In this regard, ATR was called from the concerned PS as per
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in matter of “Subhkaran Luhakara &
Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.), 170 (2010) and the same is on
record. The IO has stated in the ATR that no cognizable offence is made out. The
complainant is making allegations against the proposed accused persons only
because of pending civil suit.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. Considering that the present matter has arisen from a civil dispute qua
Ct. Cases 1394/2023 VEENA KUMARI Vs. SAURABH AND ORS Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
rented shops and the identity of the proposed accused persons is within the
knowledge of the complainant. Further, the CCTV footage on which the
complainant is relying is already annexed with the file, the required evidence is in
the possession of the complainant, no scientific investigation is required to be done
by the police in the present matter. Reliance is placed by this Court on the case
titled as “M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. vs. State”, 2002 Cr.L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi)
wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
“Section 156 Cr.P.C. empowers a
Magistrate to direct police to register case
and initiate investigation but this power
has to be exercised judiciously and not in a
mechanical manner. Those cases where
allegations are not very serious and
complainant herself in possession of
evidence to prove allegation, there should
be no need to pass order u/sec.156(3)
Cr.P.C. But cases where the Magistrate is
of the 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 in to help
complainant, police assistance can be
taken”.
6. In view of the above, the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
registration of FIR in the present case stands dismissed.
7. A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is also filed along with the
application is taken up. Same is perused. From the facts and circumstances
mentioned in the application, the offences under Section 354 and 354D are not
Ct. Cases 1394/2023 VEENA KUMARI Vs. SAURABH AND ORS Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
made out. Complainant has not made any allegation in the complaint which reveals
that any accused person in furtherance of criminal conspiracy was following or
contacting or trying to follow or contact her to foster personal interactions
repeateadly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her, or was monitoring her
use of internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication. The
complaint is also not containing any allegation qua use of assault or criminal force
to the complainant with intention or knowledge to outrage her modesty. However,
the contents of complaint is revealing the commission of the offences u/s
341/352/506/509 IPC as it is alleged that she has been pushed, her hair have been
pulled, the passage to her shops has been blocked by the accused persons and the
words with intention to outrage her modesty have been shouted in broad daylight.
8. In view of above discussion, I take cognizance of the offence u/s
341/352/506/509 IPC. An opportunity is granted to the complainant to prove his
case by leading evidence in his support. Put the matter for PSE on 16.05.2026.
Dasti copy of order be given as prayed for.
(NISHAT BANGARH)
JMFC-01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/20.03.2026
Ct. Cases 1394/2023 VEENA KUMARI Vs. SAURABH AND ORS Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --