Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 1731/2024
SUNIL PANDIT Vs. AJAY SINGH
PS (Railway Sarai Rohilla)
08.08.2025
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Devki Nandan, ld. Counsel for complainant.
Enquiry officer SI Sukhbir Singh in person.
Clarification sought from the enquiry officer.
Put up for orders at 02:00 pm.
(Manuj Kaushal)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/08.08.2025
At 02:00 pm
Matter is fixed for passing of order on the
application filed by the applicant under Section 175(3) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth BNSS,
2023) 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 on
07.07.2024, while the complainant was sitting at Chappan
Bhigga Park, the accused Ajay Singh came over to him and a
heated conversation took place between them. It is further stated
that accused suddenly attacked the complainant with brick/stone
multiple times on the head. It is further stated that thereafter the
complainant called his son to the spot and called 112 number
whereupon he was taken to the Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital and
his MLC was conducted. It is further stated that the complainant
made a complaint vide DD No. 112A dated 31.08.2024 and
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
further sent a reminder to DCP concerned however, no action
was taken.
ATR was filed by the enquiry officer who has stated
that the complainant refused to give any statement regarding the
incident. It is further stated that the complainant had himself
stated in his MLC that he does not want any police action. It is
further stated that the nature of injuries sustained by the
complainant was opined to be simple and a NCR U/s 115(2) BNS
was registered.
Arguments heard. Records 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 which is analogous to Section
175(3) of BNSS.
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 :
“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
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
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. A
perusal of the record shows that the case of the complainant is
substantially based upon the oral and documentary evidence of
the complainant. The allegations in the application clearly shows
that the evidence is within the control of the complainant or can
be produced before the Court after summoning the concerned
persons and the assistance of investigating agency is not required
for the collection of the evidence as the facts and circumstances
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
of the case are within the knowledge of the applicant. Further, 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, the exercise of discretionary
power under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 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 225 of
BNSS, 2023 is kept open for consideration after examination on
oath of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 223 of
BNSS, 2023.
Complainant is at liberty to lead PSE on 17.09.2025.
(Manuj Kaushal)
JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/08.08.2025
-- 4 of 4 --