Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page No. 1
30 Ct. Cases / 769/2025
VIJAY NARAIN SETH Vs.
MOHD AZHAR SAEED ALIAS AZHAR SAEED
(Jama Masjid)
01.10.2026
Present: Sh. Aman Kumar Pandey Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
An application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC/175(3) BNSS along
with a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC/223 BNSS had been moved by the
complainant against the respondents/accused person for the offences
under appropriate sections of BNS with a prayer that the complaint
be sent to the concerned PS for registration of FIR. In view of the
above application, status report was summoned from the concerned
PS. The case is fixed for orders today.
ORDER
01. I have carefully perused the application u/s 175(3) BNSS as well
as the other material on record.
02. As per the facts mentioned in the complaint, the complainant is
one of the partners of a partnership firm M/s Jagat Talkies
Distributors. The proposed accused person approached Jagat Talkies
Distributor for grant and transfer of sub-license of a shop at Gali
Jagat Cinema Wali, Jama Masjid, Urdu Bazar in their favour. That
being induced by the proposed accused person, the complainant
agreed to transfer and grant license of the above area to the proposed
accused person and entrusted him with the possession of said
licensed premises along with fittings and fixtures. It was agreed
between the parties that the accused person would not assign or
sublet the licensed premises to any third party or to part way with the
articles entrusted to them. Later on the complainant came to know
-- 1 of 4 --
Page No. 2
that the proposed accused person unlawfully without consent of the
complainant parted with the possession of the licensed area and failed
to return the articles entrusted to them. Therefore, it is alleged that
the proposed accused person has committed offence u/s
318/335/336/316(2) BNS.
03. For these grievances, the complainant gave complaint to the SHO
and DCP concerned. Being unsatisfied with the action on the above
mentioned complaints, the complainant has filed the present
application for registration of FIR.
04. As per the ATR, the said matter was referred to Samadhan-
Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 31.05.2023 of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The matter was settled and was
disposed of and possession was surrendered by the accused in favour
of the complainant on 01.08.2024 by way of a possession letter. It is
further stated that the matter is civil in nature and no cognizable
offence is made out to have been committed by the proposed accused
persons.
05. Record perused. Submissions heard.
06. At the outset, it is imperative to keep in consideration the
circumstances when an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC should be
entertained by the Court. In
Ms. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. State
2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the circumstances when the powers
of magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should be exercised, has been
explained. It was held that:
"Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police
to register case and initiate investigation but this
power had to be exercised judiciously not in
mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations
are not very serious and complainant himself in
possession of evidence to prove allegation, there
-- 2 of 4 --
Page No. 3
should be no need to pass order U/s 156 Cr.P.C" .
07. Moreover, it has been held in
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs State
Of U.P. And Ors. 2002 CriLJ 2907 that “where the complainant is in
possession of the complete details of all the accused as well as the
witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed
nor any such material evidence is required to be collected which can
be done only by the police, no "investigation" would normally be
required and the procedure of complaint case should be adopted.”
08. The word used in Section 156(3) Cr.PC/Section 175 BNSS is
'may'. The powers under this section are discretionary in nature and
an FIR cannot be registered mechanically by invoking these
provisions.
09. On enquiry regarding the settlement between the parties, it was
submitted by the complainant that the mediation was only related to
the land/licensed area and not related to the return of the articles
entrusted to the proposed accused person, with respect to which the
present application has filed. As per the ATR, the accused had already
discharged his financial obligations towards the complainant and
thereafter handed over the premises in compliance with mediation
settlement. In view of the material on record, preliminary enquiry
report of the IO and after hearing the submissions of counsel, it is
clear that the identity of the accused is known to the complainant, all
the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be within the
knowledge of the complainant and evidence can be conveniently
taken without assistance of police investigation. In the facts of the
present case, there appears no requirement of police investigation.
Further, if there is any need, police inquiry can be ordered u/s 202
Cr.P.C. for verification of any documents or for any other purpose, if
-- 3 of 4 --
Page No. 4
required.
10. Accordingly, with the above observations, application u/s 156(3)
Cr. PC is dismissed.
11. However, I take cognizance under section 200 Cr. PC. The case
be re-listed for pre-summoning evidence. The complainant is at
liberty to prove his case by way of evidence and the complainant is
directed to produce evidence and witnesses at his own efforts.
12. Put up for PSE on 13.01.2027.
(Ms. Rashi Raheja)
JMFC-13, Central/THC
Delhi/01.10.2026
-- 4 of 4 --