Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIS No.988/25
PS : Darya Ganj
Mohd. Shafiq
S/o. Mohd. Atta
Resident of 2577, Gali Katra Gafur Baksh
Mohalla Niyarian, Delhi 110006 … Complainant
Versus
Mohd. Rashid
S/o. Mohd. Kamil
Resident of 3175, Kucha Tara Chand
Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002 … Proposed Accused
O R D E R
18.12.2025
Present : Mr Firoz Alam, Ld. Counsel for complainant /
applicant a/w complainant/applicant
1. By this order, I am dealing with an application filed by the
complainant under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023, corresponding to Section 156(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The complainant
seeks a direction to the SHO, Police Station Darya Ganj, to
register an FIR against the accused for offences punishable
under Sections 318 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
2023, corresponding to Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, and to investigate the matter.
-- 1 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
2
2. Along with this application, the complainant has filed a
complaint under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023, corresponding to Section 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In substance, the
complainant’s case is that he, the accused and two other
persons, namely Rashid Mirza and Mohd. Aslam, entered
into a collaboration agreement dated 25.02.2025 in respect
of property bearing number 3175, measuring about 115
square yards, situated at Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi.
3. According to the complainant, on the date of execution of
the collaboration agreement he paid an amount of Rs.
2,00,000 to the accused in the presence of witnesses. It is
further stated that, under the agreement, the accused was
required to hand over actual, physical, peaceful and vacant
possession of the said property to the complainant so that
construction could be undertaken in terms of the
collaboration. Clause 5 of the agreement is stated to provide
that a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was to be paid by the
complainant within one and a half months from the date of
execution of the agreement. The complainant asserts that he
is ready and willing to pay this further amount as well.
4. The grievance of the complainant is that, despite repeated
efforts to contact the accused both telephonically and in
person, and despite sending messages and making calls
through a messaging application, the accused did not
cooperate, did not provide copies of the title chain
-- 2 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
3
documents and did not hand over possession of the property
as agreed. The complainant then caused a legal notice dated
17.04.2025 to be issued through counsel. The accused is said
to have replied on 24.04.2025 and the complainant describes
this reply as false and frivolous.
5. The complaint further narrates that on 07.05.2025, some
respectable persons known to both sides gathered in the
locality of the accused in an attempt to resolve the dispute. It
is alleged that instead of settling the matter, the accused told
the complainant, in effect, to forget about the amount of Rs.
2,00,000 and coupled this with a threat of adverse
consequences. On this basis, the complainant alleges
criminal intimidation, apart from cheating.
6. It is also stated that the complainant has sent written
complaints to the SHO, Police Station Darya Ganj, and to
higher police authorities on 08.05.2025. According to him,
no action has followed and hence he has approached this
Court under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The present application is supported
by an affidavit of the complainant affirming the correctness
of the contents.
7. An Action Taken Report has been filed on behalf of the
SHO, Police Station Darya Ganj. The report records that the
complaint was diarised and marked to SI Shakti for enquiry.
During the enquiry it was found that the complainant and the
accused had entered into a collaboration agreement dated
25.02.2025 regarding the above property and that the
-- 3 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
4
complainant had paid Rs. 2,00,000 to the accused. It is noted
in the report that under the agreement the accused was to
hand over actual and peaceful possession of the property to
the complainant for construction. The report concludes that
the complaint essentially relates to alleged breach of this
agreement, that the dispute is civil in nature and that no
cognizable offence is made out. On that basis, no FIR was
registered. The SHO has stated that he will abide by any
order passed by the Court.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and gone
through the complaint, the present application, the affidavits,
the documents on record and the Action Taken Report.
9. The law on the scope of powers under Section 175(3) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, corresponding to
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is
now fairly well settled. In M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
v. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has made it clear that a Magistrate is not expected to
direct registration of an FIR as a matter of routine. The
power is to be used sparingly and in a thoughtful manner.
Where the complainant already possesses the material
needed to substantiate his case, it is ordinarily not necessary
to send the matter to the police for investigation.
10. In Subh Karan Luharuka and Another v. State and Another,
2010 (3) JCC 1972 and 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2324, the
High Court explained this further and observed that an order
for investigation is more appropriate where there is some
-- 4 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
5
material which the complainant cannot reasonably collect on
his own, for example where important evidence lies outside
his reach or where the identity of the accused is not known.
Conversely, when the parties are known to each other, the
dispute is between private individuals and the material is
largely in the complainant’s control, the Magistrate may
decline to invoke Section 156(3) and may instead proceed
with the complaint as a private complaint.
11. In Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander and Another, Crl. M.C.
1463 of 2020 with Crl. M.A. 5732 of 2020, decided on
28.09.2020 by the High Court of Delhi, while referring to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka
Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, and
again to Subh Karan Luharuka and Another v. State and
Another, the Court has reminded Magistrates that an order
under Section 156(3) is itself a judicial order. It cannot be
passed in a mechanical or casual way. The complainant is
expected to show that he has first approached the police
under Section 154(1) and then, if necessary, under Section
154(3). Presently, this requirement appears to have been
met, and the complainant has also supported his application
with an affidavit.
12. Even so, the law does not stop at these formal steps. The
Magistrate must still look at the complaint and see whether
the basic ingredients of any cognizable offence are
disclosed. As clarified in decisions like Usha Chakraborty v.
State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, and
-- 5 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
6
Pandharinath Narayan Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2015
SCC OnLine Bom 882, this does not mean that the Court
has to weigh the evidence as if it were delivering a final
judgment, but it must see, on a plain reading, whether the
essential elements of the offences alleged are really present.
13. It is also recognised that before directing registration of an
FIR, the Magistrate may call for a report from the police to
understand what has emerged in the preliminary enquiry.
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and
its corresponding provision in Section 175(3) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 are often used in
this way. The contents of such an Action Taken Report are
then to be considered by the Court while deciding whether
police investigation is truly needed or whether the complaint
can instead proceed as a private complaint. Courts have
emphasised, in matters like Gurdeep Singh Sudan v. State,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 2553, and Om Prakash v. State, 2012
SCC OnLine Del 175, that the order of the Magistrate
should be a speaking and reasoned order, explaining what, if
anything, is made out and why police investigation is, or is
not, being directed.
14. Turning back to the facts at hand, the relationship between
the complainant and the accused is rooted in a collaboration
agreement regarding development of an immovable
property. The complainant does not dispute that he willingly
entered into this agreement. He says that he paid Rs.
2,00,000 at the time of execution of the agreement and that
-- 6 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
7
he is willing to pay a further Rs. 2,00,000 as contemplated
by the agreement. His principal grievance is that the accused
has not yet handed over possession, has not provided title
chain documents and has responded to his legal notice in a
manner which he finds unacceptable.
15. All of these aspects, namely the existence and terms of the
collaboration agreement, the payment of Rs. 2,00,000, the
complainant’s willingness to pay a further sum, the
exchange of legal notice and reply and the later meeting in
the presence of respectable persons, are matters which can
be proved through documents and oral testimony. The
written agreement is with the parties. The payment of money
can be proved through receipts, banking records or other
contemporaneous material. The notice and reply are already
on record. Those who were present at the alleged meeting on
07.05.2025 can be examined in Court as witnesses.
16. The allegation that the accused never intended to honour the
collaboration agreement and that there was dishonest
intention from the very beginning is a serious one. Whether
that is so or not will depend on a close examination of the
agreement, the conduct of the parties and the sequence of
events. That exercise can be carried out effectively in
complaint proceedings, on the basis of evidence led before
the Court. For present purposes, it is enough to note that the
entire transaction is documented, the accused is a known
person with a fixed address and there is no allegation that
any vital material is exclusively in the hands of the police or
-- 7 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
8
of some third party who cannot be approached through
ordinary process.
17. The allegation of criminal intimidation is confined to the
incident of 07.05.2025, when the accused is said to have told
the complainant to forget about Rs. 2,00,000 and to have
coupled this with a threat. Whether this was said in the
manner alleged, and whether it amounts to criminal
intimidation in law, can also be examined in complaint
proceedings when the complainant and any independent
witnesses step into the witness box. The existence of this
allegation does not by itself change the overall character of
the dispute, which clearly arises from a private transaction
relating to a collaboration agreement over property.
18. The complainant has asserted in the application that
custodial interrogation of the accused is urgently required.
No specific reason has been shown as to why such
interrogation is necessary. This is not a case involving
multiple unknown accused, or undisclosed financial trails, or
hidden assets, or any need to trace out unknown property.
The agreement, the payment of Rs. 2,00,000, the subsequent
conduct of the parties and the alleged threat are all capable
of being proved without resort to custodial interrogation. In
this backdrop, it is difficult to accept that police custody of
the accused is indispensable for unearthing the truth.
19. The Court has also kept in mind the judgment in Lalita
Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1,
which primarily deals with the obligation of the police to
-- 8 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
9
register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable
offence. That judgment does not take away the discretion of
the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 or its corresponding provision in Section
175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
Here, after looking at the complaint, the documents
produced, and the Action Taken Report, this Court finds that
the core issue is whether the terms of a private collaboration
agreement over immovable property have been honoured,
and whether any breach carries civil or criminal
consequences. The complainant has ample opportunity to
place his material before the Court without first sending the
matter to the police for investigation.
20. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the principles
laid down in M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001
IV AD (Delhi) 625, Subh Karan Luharuka and Another v.
State and Another, 2010 (3) JCC 1972 and 2010 SCC
OnLine Del 2324, Alok Kumar v. Harsh Mander and
Another, Crl. M.C. 1463 of 2020 with Crl. M.A. 5732 of
2020, Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6
SCC 287, Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 90, Pandharinath Narayan Patil v. State of
Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 882, and the other
decisions noticed above, I am of the considered view that
this is not a fit case for directing registration of an FIR under
Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
2023, corresponding to Section 156(3) of the Code of
-- 9 of 10 --
Ct. Cases / 988/2025
MOHD SHAFIQ
Vs.
MOHD RASHID
(Darya Ganj)
10
Criminal Procedure 1973.
21. The application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha is dismissed.
22. Put up for consideration of complaint u/s 223 BNSS on
23.04. 2026.
23. It is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall be
taken as an expression of final opinion on the merits of the
complaint. All questions of fact and law are left open to be
examined at the appropriate stage in accordance with law.
24. The order be uploaded as per rules.
Announced in open court
on 18.12.2025
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central
Delhi/18.12.2025
-- 10 of 10 --