Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 959/2024
Randeep Dhuria Vs. Parmanjeet Singh
PS (Railway Sarai Rohilla)
18.09.2025
Present: Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Matter is listed for orders.
Put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(Manuj Kaushal)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/18.09.2025
At 04:00 pm
Matter is fixed for passing of order on the
application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth CrPC, 1973)
seeking directions to the SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla to register an
FIR and to investigate the matter.
Briefly stated, it is the complainant’s case that the
accused had indicted the complainant as a lawful tenant in the
Shop bearing no. 8-A, Shri Nagar Colony, Bharat Nagar Road,
Delhi-110052 after introducing himself as the owner of the said
shop and the complainant was in the peaceful possession of the
said shop. It is further stated that the accused filed a civil suit
against the complainant in the month of October, 2013 which was
decided in 2019 against the complainant. It is the complainant’s
case that the complainant despite having sold the said property to
Sunny Kapoor represented himself as the owner of the property
to the complainant and in the Court. It is further stated that the
accused has been receiving the rent from the complainant without
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
having disclosed that he was not the owner and thereby the
accused has cheated the complainant and caused wrongful loss to
the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant had
given a complaint to SHO PS Sarai Rohilla and senior police
officials however, no action was taken, hence the present
application.
ATR was filed by the enquiry officer who has stated
that the matter is related to civil dispute between the complainant
and accusd Paramjeet Singh and no cognizable offence has been
made out.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Before examining the merits of the aforesaid
application, I find it expedient to refer to the law regarding
Section 156(3) of CrPC, 1973.
In
M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, 2001(2)
JCC (Delhi) 67, the Hon'ble High Court, has observed as under:
“It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code
empowers to Magistrate to direct the police to
register a case and intimate 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 very
serious and the complainant 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. This 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 complainant himself may not be in
a position to collect and produce evidence before
the court and interest of justice demand that the
police should step in the help of the
complainant”.
In the case of
Mohd. Salim vs State, (2010) 175 DLT
473 :
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
“11. The use of the expression may" in sub-section
(3) of s. 156(3) of the Code leaves no doubt that the
power conferred upon the Magistrate is
discretionary and he is not bound to direct
investigation by the Police even if the allegations
made in the complaint disclose commission of a
cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances
of a given case, the Magistrate may feel that the
matter does not require investigation by the Police
and can be proved by the complainant himself,
without any assistance from the Police. In that case,
he may, instead of directing investigation by the
Police, straight away take cognizance of the alleged
offence and proceed under s. 200 of the Code by
examining the complainant and his witnesses, if
any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct
investigation by the Police only where the
assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary
and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely
to suffer in the absence of investigation by the
Police. The Magistrate is not expected to
mechanically direct investigation by the Police
without first examining whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, investigation by the
State machinery is actually required or not. If the
allegations made in the complaint are simple,
where the Court can straight away proceed to
conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to
record evidence and proceed further in the matter,
instead of passing the buck to the Police under
156(3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations
made in the complaint require complex and
complicated investigation of which cannot be
undertaken without active assistance and expertise
of the State machinery, it would only be
appropriate for the Magistrate to direct
investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is,
therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post
Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while
considering an application seeking investigation by
the police”.
This being the legal position, based on the averments
made in the application, arguments furthered by the counsel and
documents filed on record, I am of the view that no case is made
out for directing registration of FIR for the following reasons. As
per the complaint of the complainant, the complainant has been
inducted by the accused as a tenant in the property in question
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
and the complainant has remained in the possession of the
property since inception. Since the complainant has enjoyed the
benefits of the tenancy therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no wrongful loss to the complainant. Further, as per the
ATR despite the sale of the property, Paramjeet Singh is taking
care of the said shop and Sunny Kapoor has not received the
possession of the property.
Be that as it may be, the facts of the case are within
the knowledge of the complainant and the case of the
complainant is substantially based upon the oral evidence of the
complainant. The allegations in the complainant clearly shows
that the evidence is within the control of the complainant or can
be tendered after summoning the same. No assistance of
investigating agency is required as the facts and circumstances of
the case are within the knowledge of the applicant. The contents
of the application made by the complainant reveal that the
complainant is well conversant with the identity of the accused.
In light of the aforesaid observations, the exercise of
discretionary power under Section 156(3) of CrPC, 1973 is
declined and the aforesaid application is dismissed.
Before parting with this Order, it is clarified that the
option of directing police investigation under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C, 1973/225 BNSS is kept open for consideration after
examination on oath of the complainant and his witnesses under
Section 200 of CrPC, 1973.
Put up for arguments on cognizance on 23.12.2025.
(Manuj Kaushal)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/18.09.2025
-- 4 of 4 --