Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 22 Ct. Cases / 702/2025
ANKIT SINGHAL Vs. SOMESH JOLLY
(Roop Nagar)
03.07.2026
Present: None for Complainant.
An application u/s 175BNSS alongwith a complaint u/s
223BNSS had been moved by the complainant against the
respondents/accused persons 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 application u/s 175
BNSS, 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 BNSS as well as
the other material on record.
02. As per the facts mentioned in complaint, the complainant was
well acquainted with accused no. 1, 2 & 3. On 05.08.2023, the
Complainant went to Black Mail lounge Roop Nagar and met with
accused persons, who told them that accused no. 1 had a Porsche Car
in a very good condition. The Complainant test drove car bearing no.
HR26EW5453 and found the same in good condition. He was told
that the deal could be done in 18 lacs and the Complainant was told
that the accused persons would negotiate the deal with the owner of
the car. On 06.08.2023, Complainant received a call from accused
no. 2 informing that they have finalised the deal of the vehicle for 15
lacs and the amount is to be transferred immediately otherwise the
said deal would stand cancelled. On the same day in the evening, the
Complainant met with the accused persons and they convinced the
-- 1 of 4 --
Complainant to transfer an amount of Rs. 15 lacs in the bank account
of accused Simran Chadda in three installments and promised to
deliver the car on next date, however, the car has not been delivered
till date.
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, proposed accused Kush and Love joined the
enquiry and they stated that they do not know the Complainant or
Simran Chadda. The EO asked for any written documents in this
respect to the above said car deal from the Complainant however,
the Complainant stated that the car deal was not made in writing.
Proposed accused Somesh Jolly stated that he purchased the car in
total amount of Rs. 33 lacs out of which 18 lacs were paid through
cheque and rest 15 lacs were given in cash to the owner. It is further
stated in the ATR that in view of the absence of sufficient and reliable
evidence, prima-facie no cognizable offence is made out.
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
-- 2 of 4 --
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
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. The present matter is related to purchase and sale of the car. The
Complainant has not been able to place any document on record to
show the agreement related to the above deal. 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
persons 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 had u/s 202 Cr.P.C. for verification of any
documents or for any other purpose, if required.
-- 3 of 4 --
10. Accordingly with the above observations, application u/s 175
BNSS is dismissed.
11. However, I take cognizance under section 223BNSS. 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 16.10.2026.
(Ms. Rashi Raheja)
JMFC-13, Central/THC
Delhi/03.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --