Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CT CASES 422/2025
Ms. X Vs. Tanzeem Ilahi
PS- Darya Ganj
20.05.2026
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S. 156(3) Cr.PC
Pronounced in compliance of note no. (ii) contained in order no. 14/DHC/Gaz-
IIB/G-7/VI.E2(a)/2026 dated 29.04.2026 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Present: Dr. A.P. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/complainant (VC).
1. Considering the nature of allegations, the name and identity
particulars of the applicant/complainant are not being disclosed in this
order, and she is being referred to as “the applicant/complainant” or “Ms.
X”.
2. The present common application/complaint has been filed under
Section 156(3) CrPC read with Section 200 CrPC. By way of the present
application, the applicant/complainant has sought directions for
registration of FIR against the proposed accused Tanzeem Ilahi. At this
stage, therefore, the application is being considered only to the extent it
seeks directions under Section 156(3) CrPC.
3. The case put forth by the applicant/complainant is that the
proposed accused contacted her through WhatsApp/social media and
thereafter called her on 10.12.2019 to house no. 3183, Street Kucha Tara
Chand, Daryaganj, on the pretext of a birthday. It is alleged that after
reaching there, she was offered cold drink, snacks and cake, after which
1/10
-- 1 of 10 --
she felt dizzy and unconscious. It is further alleged that when she
regained consciousness, her clothes were not in proper condition and
there were wounds/injuries on her body. According to the
applicant/complainant, the proposed accused thereafter threatened her by
claiming that he had made her nude video and demanded money from
her. It is also alleged that, under such threats, she paid money to him and
mortgaged her jewellery, and that the proposed accused continued to
blackmail and threaten her by saying that he would upload the alleged
video.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/complainant has submitted that the
allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is argued that
the proposed accused is in possession of incriminating digital material
and, unless an FIR is registered, his mobile phone/devices cannot be
seized and the alleged video or other digital material cannot be
recovered. It is, therefore, prayed that directions be issued to the SHO
concerned for registration of FIR.
5. The record shows that the present common application/complaint
was initially filed before the Court having jurisdiction over PS Chandni
Mahal. Vide order dated 05.06.2024, an action taken report was called
from the SHO concerned. On 04.09.2024, it was submitted by the
enquiry officer that the complainant did not wish to proceed further with
the complaint as the matter had been amicably settled between the
parties. Thereafter, summons were directed to be issued to the
2/10
-- 2 of 10 --
complainant. On 29.07.2025, Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted
that the complainant was willing to pursue the present application under
Section 156(3) CrPC. On 15.10.2025, the enquiry officer sought an
adjournment to file ATR on the ground that the proposed accused had
requested for a last opportunity to return money to the complainant,
whereas the complainant submitted that she had not received any money
and was being threatened. On 03.12.2025, it was reported that the place
of incident falls within the jurisdiction of PS Daryaganj. The matter was
thereafter assigned to this Court and ATR was called from PS
Daryaganj. ATR has been filed and arguments have been heard.
6. It is also necessary to record that in one of the status
reports/ATRs submitted by the enquiry officer, it has been mentioned as
if directions for registration of FIR had already been issued by the Court.
This statement is not borne out from the judicial record. A perusal of the
orders passed from time to time shows that only an action taken
report/status report was called from the concerned police station, initially
in terms of order dated 05.06.2024 and thereafter after transfer of the
matter to this Court. No order directing registration of FIR has been
passed at any stage. The said observation in the status report is,
therefore, factually incorrect and cannot create any entitlement in favour
of the applicant/complainant for registration of FIR. The present prayer
is being considered independently on the basis of the
application/complaint, earlier complaints/representations, ATRs/status
3/10
-- 3 of 10 --
reports, material placed on record and the settled legal position
governing exercise of power under Section 156(3) CrPC.
7. I have heard the submissions and have carefully perused the
application/complaint, the earlier complaints/representations made to
police authorities, the later complaint/representation made to PS
Daryaganj, the ATRs/status reports and the material placed on record.
8. The legal position on the exercise of power under Section 156(3)
CrPC is settled. The said power is a judicial power and is not to be
exercised mechanically or as a matter of course merely because the
complaint mentions cognizable offences. The Magistrate is required to
apply judicial mind to the facts, the material placed on record, the nature
of allegations, the necessity of police investigation and whether the
evidence is within the reach of the complainant.
9. In Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others,
(2015) 6 SCC 287, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that applications
under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be entertained in a routine manner
and that the Magistrate must apply mind before issuing any direction. In
Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6
SCC 439, it was observed that the Magistrate, while dealing with an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC, has to consider whether the
matter requires investigation by police or can proceed as a complaint
case. In M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 SCC OnLine
4/10
-- 4 of 10 --
Del 448, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that where the
complainant is in possession of evidence or can lead evidence in support
of the complaint, the Magistrate need not direct registration of FIR. In
Subhkaran Luharuka and another v. State and another, 2010 SCC
OnLine Del 2324, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi emphasised that
directions under Section 156(3) CrPC should be issued only where
police investigation is necessary and not otherwise.
10. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2014) 2 SCC 1, deals primarily with the duty of the police under
Section 154 CrPC when information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence. The said judgment does not lay down that, in every
application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate is bound to direct
registration of FIR once the complaint uses expressions suggestive of
cognizable offences. The discretion of the Magistrate under Section
156(3) CrPC remains a judicial discretion. The Court must still examine
whether, in the facts of the case, such a direction is necessary.
11. Thus, the question before this Court is not merely whether
serious allegations have been made in the complaint. The real question is
whether, on the basis of the material placed before the Court, registration
of FIR and full-fledged police investigation is warranted at this stage.
12. In the present case, the earliest complaints/representations made
by the applicant/complainant to the police authorities are of considerable
5/10
-- 5 of 10 --
significance. On comparison of the earlier complaints with the later
complaint/representation made to PS Daryaganj, material improvements
are apparent. The earlier complaints did not contain any clear or specific
allegation of rape or sexual intercourse by the proposed accused. The
substance of the grievance at that stage was primarily regarding alleged
making of a nude video, blackmail, threats and demand/payment of
money.
13. However, in the later complaint/representation made to PS
Daryaganj, which bears date 17.11.2025 and appears to have been
received on 02.12.2025, certain expressions have been introduced which
materially change the nature and gravity of the allegations. The later
version contains an additional assertion to the effect that the proposed
accused stated that in birthday parties sex is permissible. The expression
“sex video” has also been used in the later representation, whereas the
earlier allegation was substantially with respect to an alleged nude video.
The word “balatkar” also appears in the later complaint while describing
the alleged physical and mental harassment.
14. These additions cannot be treated as minor variations in
language. They go to the root of the nature of accusation. A version
which was earlier substantially projected as a grievance regarding
blackmail on the basis of an alleged nude video and demand of money
has, at a later stage, been sought to be given a materially different colour
by introducing expressions suggestive of rape/sexual intercourse. There
6/10
-- 6 of 10 --
is no satisfactory explanation on record as to why such allegations were
not clearly stated in the earlier complaints made to the police authorities,
particularly when the applicant/complainant had approached the police
much earlier.
15. This Court is conscious that delay, by itself, is not always fatal,
particularly in allegations of sexual nature. The Court is also conscious
that the conduct of a complainant in such matters cannot be judged by
rigid or stereotyped standards. At the same time, while considering
whether directions under Section 156(3) CrPC are required, the Court
cannot ignore material improvements in the version, particularly when
such improvements have the effect of changing the nature of the
allegation itself.
16. The proceedings recorded during pendency of the present matter
also cannot be overlooked. On 04.09.2024, it was reported by the
enquiry officer that the complainant did not wish to proceed further as
the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. On 15.10.2025
also, the record reflects that the enquiry officer sought time on the
ground that the proposed accused had requested for a last opportunity to
return money to the complainant. The complainant, on the said date,
stated that she had not received any money and was being threatened.
These proceedings show that the matter, as it was then projected, was
substantially revolving around alleged blackmail, threat and
payment/return of money. The record does not show that at that stage the
7/10
-- 7 of 10 --
applicant/complainant was pressing a clear and specific allegation of
rape in the manner now sought to be projected through the later
representation.
17. The proposed accused is named. His address is available on
record. The alleged incident is of the year 2019. The complainant claims
to know the proposed accused. The persons from whom she allegedly
arranged money or before whom she allegedly mortgaged jewellery are
also identifiable. The list of witnesses filed with the complaint includes
the complainant herself, police officials and the Manager of Muthoot
Finance. Thus, the foundational evidence is either within the knowledge
of the complainant or can be summoned by the Court during pre-
summoning evidence.
18. As regards the alleged video or digital material, the complaint
does not disclose any specific device, date of upload, URL, platform,
recipient, transmission detail or other concrete particulars which would
make immediate police investigation indispensable at this stage. The
allegation is broadly that the proposed accused threatened to upload the
video and blackmailed the complainant. If the complainant has any
messages, call records, screenshots, payment details, mortgage receipts
or other contemporaneous material, she can place the same before the
Court during pre-summoning evidence. If, after such evidence, the Court
finds that police assistance or inquiry is necessary, appropriate recourse
under Section 202 CrPC can still be taken.
8/10
-- 8 of 10 --
19. The present case is, therefore, not one where the identity of the
proposed accused is unknown, or where the entire evidence is outside the
reach of the complainant, or where immediate police action appears
indispensable for preservation of evidence. The matter involves a known
proposed accused, a considerably delayed grievance, material
improvements in the later version and evidence which can first be tested
in complaint proceedings.
20. A direction under Section 156(3) CrPC has serious
consequences. It results in registration of FIR and commencement of
coercive police investigation. Such direction cannot be passed merely
because serious penal sections are mentioned in the prayer clause or
because the later complaint contains expressions suggestive of
cognizable offences. The Court has to see whether the facts and material
placed before it justify such a direction. In the facts of the present case,
the material improvements in the subsequent version, the earlier stand
reflected in the enquiry regarding settlement/return of money, the
absence of a clear and specific allegation of rape in the earlier
complaints, the delay, the availability of foundational evidence with the
complainant, and the fact that no direction for registration of FIR was
ever issued by the Court despite an erroneous mention to that effect in
one status report, all weigh against issuance of directions under Section
156(3) CrPC.
9/10
-- 9 of 10 --
21. It is clarified that this Court is not returning any final finding on
the truth or falsity of the allegations. The observations made herein are
confined only to the prayer for registration of FIR under Section 156(3)
CrPC. The applicant/complainant shall remain at liberty to prove her
case in accordance with law by leading pre-summoning evidence in the
same complaint, to the extent it is treated as a complaint under Section
200 CrPC. The question whether any offence is made out for summoning
of the proposed accused shall be considered at the appropriate stage after
such evidence is led.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not satisfied that a
direction for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC is warranted
in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The prayer under
Section 156(3) CrPC is accordingly dismissed.
23. The common application/complaint shall now proceed as a
complaint under Section 200 CrPC in accordance with law.
24. Put up for pre-summoning evidence on 30.05.2026.
25. Order be uploaded as per rules.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
JMFC-11/South-East/
Saket Courts/20.05.2026
Earlier JMFC-05, Central/THC/Delhi
10/10
-- 10 of 10 --