Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 7
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS.
Ct. Cases / 1692/2025
SANJAY AGGARWAL Vs. SHRI R NAGAMANI
PS Lahori Gate
ORDER
20.08.2026
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/s 175 (3)
BNSS, moved on behalf of the complainant against the accused
person/s for registration of FIR and investigation of the case. The
present case has been filed by Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal as proprietor of
M/s Sri Sai Enterprises
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant)
against Shri R. Nagamani being proprietor of M/s V. R. Spices
(hereinafter referred to as proposed accused person).
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a well
reknowned and reputed company engaged in the business of
marketing / distribution / selling of dry fruits and has established
goodwill, reputation and recognition in the global market. It is the
case of the complainant that through a broker, it approached the
proposed accused for purchase of dry fruits i.e. green cardamom of
size 8 mm and placed the purchase order for a total consideration of
Rs. 50 lacs for which, the proposed accused demanded the full
amount as advance payment. It is the case of the complainant that
the said payment was made through its banker i.e. Kotak Mahindra
-- 1 of 7 --
Page 2 of 7
Bank on 17.12.2020 but despite receipt of same, the accused failed
to supply the goods till date. It is further the case of the complainant
that neither the proposed accused returned their amount nor supplied
the goods and it is clear that they have ill intention to avoid and
escape the said obligation as despite repeated reminders and
requests, they are refusing to make the payment. It is further the
case of complainant that when a legal notice was sent to proposed
accused, he made up a false defence that he had made/adjusted the
said payment to one Devdutt Aggarwal on asking of the
complainant and the said amount should be settled with him but the
complainant does not know any Devdutt Aggarwal. It is also stated
by the complainant that the proposed accused has falsely filed a
civil suit against the complainant and the abovesaid Devdutt and
obtained an ex-parte decree for a sum of Rs. 33,66,567/- against the
complainant and that the said decree has been
malafidely obtained
by him by cheating the complainant.
3. Accordingly, it is the case of the complainant that the proposed
accused has cheated the complainant of his hard earned money and
in view of the said illegal acts of cheating and forgery as committed
by the proposed accused person, he approached the police officials
vide written complaints to SHO, PS Lahori Gate and copies of the
same to Higher police officials (through regd. Speed post) but no
action was taken and hence, the present application u/s 175(3)
BNSS, seeking investigation at the hands of the police.
-- 2 of 7 --
Page 3 of 7
4. On receipt of the present application, Status report was called
in the matter and the same had been filed by IO/SI Kavish stating
that during the course of inquiry, the complainant failed to produce
any document in support of his claim and the proposed accused R.
Nagamani provided the copy of judgment of Ld. Civil Court in
Tamil Nadu wherein it is mentioned that although the complainant
herein appeared before the said court once but then did not appear
and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte. It is also stated that as per
inquiry from the said Devdutt Aggarwal, he stated that he had
introduced the complainant with the proposed accused for which he
had made the payment and also duly received the goods.
Accordingly, it was stated that no legal action is warranted on the
present complainant and the complainant should pursue his
grievances by filing revision petition before the appropriate court.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the allegations
made in the complaint, the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the
complainant and the status report filed by the IO.
6. Before proceeding any further, it is relevant to note the settled
law and the guidelines that are to weigh in the mind of the court
while deciding any application u/s 156 Cr. P.C. In this regard, it is
important to note the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of
Shri Subhkaran Luharuka and Anr. v. State and
Anr. (2010) 170 DLT 516;
“42. Thus, there are pre-requisites to be
followed by the complainant before
-- 3 of 7 --
Page 4 of 7
approaching the Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the Code which is a discretionary
remedy as the provision proceeds with the
word ‘May’. The magistrate is required to
exercise his mind while doing so. He should
pass orders only if he is satisfied that the
information reveals commission of cognizable
offences and also about necessity of police
investigation for digging out of evidence
neither in possession of the complainant nor
can be procured without the assistance of the
police. It is thus not necessary that in every
case where a complaint has been filed under
Section 200 of the Code, the Magistrate
should direct the Police to investigate the
crime merely because an application has also
been filed under Section 156(3) of the Code
even though the evidence to be led by the
complainant is in his possession or can be
produced by summoning witnesses, may be
with the assistance of the court or otherwise.
The issue of jurisdiction also becomes
important at that stage and cannot be
ignored.”
7. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
case of
M/s Skippers Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State 2001 SCC OnLine
Del 448 also become relevant in this regard:-
“7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code
empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to
register a case and initiate 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 complaint 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. The discretion
ought to be exercised after proper application of
mind and only in those cases where the
-- 4 of 7 --
Page 5 of 7
Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the
allegations is such that the complaint himself
may not be in a position to collect and produce
evidence before the Court and interests of
justice demand that the police should step in to
help the complaint. The police assistance can be
taken by a Magistrate even under Sec. 202(1) of
the Code after taking cognizance and
proceeding with the complaint under Chapter
XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 2001
(1) Supreme page 129 titled “Suresh Chand
Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.”
8. The settled principles of law governing the adjudication of
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C would
mutatis mutandis apply to the
adjudication of the application u/s 175(3) BNSS and accordingly,
the court is proceeding further to decide the present application
upon the basis of the same principles.
9. In view of the settled law and from a careful scrutiny of the
record, the court is of the considered opinion that the facts as
disclosed by the complainant do not inspire the confidence of the
court and it appears that the complainant is trying to give criminal
colour to a dispute which is essentially civil/commercial in nature.
Furthermore, on the basis of the record available including the copy
of judgment dated 19.04.2024 of the Ld. Court of the Principal
District Judge, THENI, as placed by the EO on record along with
his ATR, it appears that indeed the complainant herein appeared in
the said matter but was thereafter proceeded ex-parte as he failed to
make any representation before the said court. Accordingly, it is
clear that all the facts constituting the alleged offence, including the
-- 5 of 7 --
Page 6 of 7
names and whereabouts of the proposed accused persons, are well
within the knowledge and the reach of the complainant. There does
not appear any requirement of any scientific or technical
investigation in the matter as the nature of the matter is not
complex. There is no requirement of collection of evidence by the
investigating agency as the necessary and cogent evidence are either
in the reach of the complainant or can be summoned, through the
court.
10. At this juncture, the court is fructified by the observations of
the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya v.
State of U.P., and Ors. 2002 SCC OnLine All 1221 wherein it was
observed that
:-
“21. The scheme of Cr. P.C. and the prevailing
circumstances require that the option to direct
the registration of the case and its investigation
by the police should be exercised where some
“investigation” is required, which is of a nature
that is not possible for the private complainant,
and which can only be done by the police upon
whom statute has conferred the powers
essential for investigation, for example
(1) where the full details of the accused are not
known to the complainant and the same can be
determined only as a result of investigation, or
(2) where recovery of abducted person or
stolen property is required to be made by
conducting raids or searches of suspected
places or persons, or
(3) where for the purpose of launching a
successful prosecution of the accused, evidence
is required to be collected and preserved. To
illustrate by example cases may be visualised
where for production before Court at the trial
-- 6 of 7 --
Page 7 of 7
(a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken
and kept sealed for fixing the
place of incident; or (b) recovery of case
property is to be made and kept sealed; or (c)
recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act;
or (d) preparation of inquest report; or (e)
witnesses are not known and have to be found
out or discovered through the process of
investigation.”
11. In view of the observations hereinabove and keeping in mind
the totality of the facts and circumstances, the court does not deem it
fit to invoke its discretionary power vested under section 175(3)
BNSS. The court is of the considered opinion that the complainant
is required to
prima facie establish the allegations by leading pre
summoning evidence u/s 200 Cr.P.C/223 BNSS. Accordingly, the
relief claimed u/s 175(3) BNSS is declined. If at all there shall be
any need for investigation, then the provisions u/s 202 Cr.P.C/225
BNSS may be resorted to.
12. In view of the above, the present application u/s 175 (3)
BNSS is hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that nothing stated
herein shall tantamount to any observations upon the merits of the
case.
13. Copy of the order be given dasti.
(Payal Singal)
JMFC-09/Central/THC
20.08.2026
-- 7 of 7 --