Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
Ct. Cases 959/2026
GURJEET SINGH VS. SHIV SHANKAR
12.06.2026
Present: Mohd. Danish, Ld. Counsel for complainant
along with complainant
1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 223 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 308, 318 and
351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by the accused. The
statement of the complainant under Section 223 BNSS has been
recorded. The complaint, statement of the complainant and
documents placed on record have been carefully perused.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused had entered
into a compromise with him in respect of a pending case and
agreed to settle the matter for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is alleged
that the complainant paid the said amount via cheques to the
accused, but despite receiving the amount, the accused did not
honour the terms of the compromise and thereafter demanded
further money and extended threats to the complainant.
3. At this stage, the Court is required to determine whether
the complaint and the statement of the complainant disclose
sufficient grounds for issuing notice to the proposed accused for
the purpose of taking cognizance.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
4. A careful reading of the complaint and the statement of the
complainant reveals that the dispute between the parties
essentially arises out of an alleged breach of a
compromise/settlement. Mere non-compliance with the terms of
a settlement or compromise, by itself, does not constitute a
criminal offence. The material placed on record does not disclose
facts from which it can be inferred that the accused had any
dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the
transaction so as to attract the offence of cheating.
5. Extortion requires intentionally putting a person in fear of
injury and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property. As
per the complainant’s own version, the alleged payment of
Rs.2,50,000/- had already been made much before the alleged
threats. Therefore, the payment cannot be said to have been made
on account of any alleged threat. No property is alleged to have
been delivered pursuant to the alleged threats.
6. Allegations of criminal intimidation are vague and
omnibus. The complaint merely reproduces alleged threatening
words without specifying the date, time, phone number, place, or
surrounding circumstances of the alleged calls. No call
recordings, call detail records, screenshots, messages, or any
independent material have been placed on record to prima facie
substantiate the allegation. Despite alleging repeated calls from
different numbers, no supporting material has been produced.
The complaint is founded solely upon bald assertions of the
complainant.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
7. It is also noteworthy that the complainant has admitted that
a criminal case instituted by the accused against him is pending
before a Court at Agra. The allegations contained in the present
complaint arise entirely out of the said litigation and the
compromise allegedly executed during its pendency. From the
sequence of events narrated by the complainant himself, it
appears that the present proceedings have been initiated only
after the accused allegedly failed to withdraw the proceedings
pending at Agra. The complaint, therefore, appears to be a
retaliatory measure arising out of the subsisting dispute between
the parties and bears the characteristics of a counterblast to the
proceedings already pending at Agra.
8. At the pre-cognizance stage, detailed evaluation of the
merits of the case is neither warranted nor permissible. The Court
is only required to ascertain whether the allegations made in the
complaint and the material brought on record disclose the
commission of any offence so as to justify further proceedings.
However, the limited nature of scrutiny at this stage does not
oblige the Court to mechanically proceed in every case placed
before it.
9. Where, upon a prima facie examination of the complaint,
the statement of the complainant and the material produced in
support thereof, the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are
not disclosed, the Court would not be justified in setting the
criminal law in motion. The process of a criminal court cannot be
invoked merely on the basis of allegations which are vague,
inherently improbable or unsupported by material particulars. If
-- 3 of 4 --
4
the facts asserted by the complainant are accepted at their face
value and yet fail to constitute the offences alleged, no purpose
would be served by proceeding further.
10. It is further pertinent to note that Section 223 BNSS
contemplates issuance of notice to the proposed accused before
taking cognizance of a complaint. However, such requirement
would arise only where the Court is satisfied that a case for
taking cognizance is made out. Where, upon consideration of the
complaint, the statement of the complainant recorded under
Section 223 BNSS and the material placed on record, the Court
finds that no sufficient ground exists for taking cognizance,
issuance of notice to the proposed accused is not mandatory and
would be a futile exercise.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the complaint, the statement of the
complainant recorded under Section 223 BNSS and the material
placed on record do not disclose sufficient grounds for taking
cognizance of the offences alleged.
Accordingly, cognizance of the offences alleged is
declined. The complaint stands dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Neetu Sharma)
ACJM-01/CENTRAL
12.06.2026
-- 4 of 4 --