Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 15Ct. Cases 2397/2025
RAJESH NISHAD Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR MANJHI /0 (Railway Sarai
Rohilla)
16.01.2026
Present: Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
IO ASI Dinesh Kumar in person.
Arguments heard.
Be put up for orders at 4:00 pm.
(Vaibhav Garg)
JMFC-11/Central/THC
16.01.2026
At 4:00 PM
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/s 175(3) BNSS
1. This is an application u/S 175(3) BNSS seeking a direction
for registration of FIR filed by the complainant.
2. The complainant stated in the complaint that Monu, son of
the complainant, received a call from an unknown number (8528295568)
belonging to Shyam Sundar Manjhi, with whom the family has a land
dispute. It is further submitted that his son Monu went missing after
answering the call. It is further submitted that the accused used to threaten
to kill and beaten to the complainant and his family, and a previous
complaint has been filed against him at Jigna PS, Mirzapur. It is further
submitted that his son Monu was found dead and his dead body on the
railway track.
3. ATR filed by the IO concerned, as per the reply, statements of
eye-witnesses, railway staff, and other available witnesses were recorded
by the Enquiry Officer/ASI Naresh. All the statements consistently
revealed that the deceased, namely Monu s/o Sh. Rajesh Nishad
Contd…..
-- 1 of 3 --
- : 2 : -
deliberately came out of the bushes and intentionally laid himself in front
of the moving train. It is further stated in the reply that there is no
indication of any foul play, criminal negligence, or involvement of any
other person in the said incident.
4. Detailed arguments were heard on the application. This Court
has also perused the entire record.
5. The application is accompanied with an affidavit in terms of
the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Priyanka Srivastava vs
State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287. Perusal of the complainant as well as the
affidavit reveals that the complainant has averred in his complaint and has
placed supporting documents on record to the effect that he had
approached the concerned Police Station as well as the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi and thus has approached the court after exhausting the
remedy available under Sections 154(1) CrPC as well as under 154(3)
CrPC.
6. The law on the point of Section 156(3) CrPC is not res
integra anymore. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 and reiterated in Babu Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka (2022) 5
SCC 639, M/s Skipper Beverages (P) Ltd. vs. State, 2001 SCC OnLine
Del 448 and Subhkaran Luharuka vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2010
SCC OnLine Del 2324.
10. The bare perusal of allegations indicate the commission of a
cognizable offence. Thus, in the circumstances of the case and
seriousness of the allegations made, it becomes imperative that an
investigation is carried out by the police in order unearth the complete
truth and evidences.
-- 2 of 3 --
- : 3 : -
11. Accordingly, the application u/S 175(3) BNSS stands
allowed and the SHO PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station is directed to
register FIR under the relevant provisions and carry out investigation
thereupon.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the SHO concerned for
necessary action.
13. Put up for filing of a compliance report on 12.02.2026.
(Vaibhav Garg)
JMFC-11/Central/THC
16.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --