Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 Ct. Cases / 1704/2025
Gardgil Vohra Ventures Pvt Ltd (Through its Director/Authorised
Representative) Vs. Fraktl Intelligence Pvt Ltd
(Roop Nagar
24.01.2026
Present: Sh. Kanav Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
An application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC/175(3) BNSS
alongwith a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC/223 BNSS had been moved
by the complainant against the respondents/accused persons for
the offences under appropriate sections of IPC with a prayer that
the complaint be sent to the concerned PS for registration of FIR.
In view of the above application, status report was summoned
from the concerned PS. The case is fixed for orders today.
ORDER
01. I have carefully perused the application u/s 156(3) Cr. PC as
well as the other material on record.
02. As per the facts mentioned in the complaint, the complainant
seeks action against the accused persons for criminal breach of
trust, cheating, theft and criminal misappropriation on the facts
that the complainant provided various furnitures, appliances and
other goods (hereinafter referred to as “products”) to the
hospitality property named “Club W by Hyphen” on rent which is
situated at plot no. 29, Bungalow Road, Roop Nagar, Kamla
Nagar, Delhi worth Rs. 45,89,298/-. Since 2022, despite repeated
follow ups, the accused company has neither paid outstanding
rental dues nor provided access for retrieval of the lease assets.
From mid 2024 onwards, the accused consistently defaulted in
rental payments for multiple leased sites, their representatives
started avoiding calls and threatened the complainant.
-- 1 of 3 --
03. For these grievances, the complainant gave complaint to the
SHO and DCP concerned. Being unsatisfied with the action on the
above mentioned complaints, the complainant has filed the present
application for registration of FIR.
04. As per the ATR, the alleged property was visited and found that
a PG in the name of ‘Garg Living’ was running and after enquiry
from the owner of the property, it was revealed that he had rent
agreement with the alleged company and he had no issue with the
complainant. The Directors of the alleged company were
contacted, however, till date they have not joined the enquiry.
05. Record perused. Submissions heard.
06. At the outset, it is imperative to keep in consideration the
circumstances when an application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC should be
entertained by the Court. In
Ms. Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs.
State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the circumstances when the
powers of magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should be exercised, has
been explained. It was held that:
"Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct
police to register case and initiate investigation
but this power had to be exercised judiciously not
in mechanical manner. Those cases, where
allegations are not very serious and complainant
himself in possession of evidence to prove
allegation, there should be no need to pass order
U/s 156 Cr.P.C" .
07. Moreover, it has been held in
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs
State Of U.P. And Ors. 2002 CriLJ 2907 that “where the
complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the
accused as well as the witnesses who have to be examined and
-- 2 of 3 --
neither recovery is needed nor any such material evidence is
required to be collected which can be done only by the police, no
"investigation" would normally be required and the procedure of
complaint case should be adopted.”
08. The word used in Section 156(3) Cr.PC/Section 175 BNSS is
'may'. The powers under this section are discretionary in nature
and an FIR cannot be registered mechanically by invoking these
provisions.
09. In view of the material on record, preliminary enquiry report
of the IO and after hearing the submissions of counsel, it is clear
that the identity of the accused is known to the complainant, all the
facts and circumstances of the case appears to be within the
knowledge of the complainant and evidence can be conveniently
taken without assistance of police investigation. On the basis of
the allegations, it appears that the matter fiscally relates to breach
of contract/agreement between the parties.
10. Accordingly, with the above observations, application u/s
156(3) Cr. PC is dismissed.
11. However, I take cognizance under section 200 Cr. PC. The case
be re-listed for pre-summoning evidence. The complainant is at
liberty to prove his case by way of evidence and the complainant
is directed to produce evidence and witnesses at his own efforts.
12. Put up for PSE on 15.04.2026.
(Ms. Rashi Raheja)
JMFC-13, Central/THC
Delhi/24.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --