Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CIS No. 1640/2022
Mohd. Akbar Luhar Vs. Surender & Anr.
PS: Karol Bagh
U/s: 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
31.08.2023
Present: Complainant in person alongwith Ld. Counsel.
Arguments on application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C have already been
heard and the matter is fixed for orders today.
The complainant alleges that he runs his business in the shop at
4348, Ground Floor, Street no. 58, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, hereinafter
referred to as “the shop”, which was let out by Lt. Sh Puran Chand (father of
the alleged accused Surender) to Lt Md Usman Ali (father of the
complainant) on pagri of Rs. 20,000/- and monthly rent of Rs 165/-. The
complainant alleges that since the beginning of the tenancy, Lt Md Usman
Ali, and his sons (including the complainant) after his death, had been
running his business peacefully from the shop. The complainant has also
placed on record the receipts of the rent paid over the years. The complainant
further alleges that on 08/07/2022, the accused connived with the local police
and illegally trespassed into the said shop after breaking open the lock and
stole 4-5 kg of silver, 150gms of gold ornaments, important papers, account
books, rent slips issued in respect of the said shop, pagari/rent agreement,
CIS No. 1640/2022 PS: Karol Bagh Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
furniture, fixtures, machines and tools, made duplicate key of the safe. He
further submits that he was at his native place on 8/07/2022 when at around
3:15, he received a call that the lock of his shop was broken by the alleged
accused persons. The complainant alleges that the proposed accused persons
broke the locks of the shop, entered into it and removed the articles belonging
to the complainant. The complainant further alleges that he returned to Delhi
on 9/07/2022 and was shocked to see that the shutter of his shop was open
and the proposed accused persons and they were preparing to white-wash the
shop. The complainant also alleges that he noticed that all his belongings had
been removed. Thereafter, the complainant went to the police station and
made a complaint against the accused persons. The complainant also submits
that a civil suit for possession of the said shop. The complainant further
alleges that he was threatened by the alleged accused persons with dire
consequences if he did not vacate the property, complaint regarding which
has been registered vide DD No. 55 dated 28/06/2022. Hence, the
complainant alleges commission of offences u/s 120B/380/384/403/426/451/
503 IPC. The complainant further submits that he filed complaint against the
alleged accused persons 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.
CIS No. 1640/2022 PS: Karol Bagh Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
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 a PCR call was
received regarding breaking of lock and the same was assigned to ASI Rajesh
but the complainant was not found at the spot and on local enquiry, it was
found that the said shop was let out to the father of the complainant. The IO
further submitted that there are various complaints filed against the
complainant, dated 4/06/2022, 1/07/2022 and 18/07/2022, regarding the said
shop, apart from the ongoing civil case. The IO opined that the matter is
primarily civil in nature.
After perusal of the record, hearing the submissions, this court is
of the view that the identity of the accused is already known to the
complainant and the evidence such as the rent receipts, photographs and the
person who informed him about the alleged offences which are required for
proving the allegations levelled by the complainant are already within his
reach. Hence, 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)
CIS No. 1640/2022 PS: Karol Bagh Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
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”.
With this observation, the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
registration of FIR in the present case stands dismissed.
A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is also filed along with
the application. Complaint of complainant perused. I take cognizance of the
offences. An opportunity is granted to the complainant to prove his case by
leading evidence in his support. Put the matter for PSE on 10.01.2024.
Dasti copy of order be given as prayed for.
(Shipra Dhankar)
MM-01,Central,THC/Delhi
31.08.2023
CIS No. 1640/2022 PS: Karol Bagh Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --