Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 63 CT Cases 177/2023 DEEPAK BEGWANI Vs. THE S.H.O P.S. KRISHNA NAGAR ETC. /0
(Krishna Nagar)
Contract of the Ld. APP has not been renewed.
26-07-2025
Present : Complainant with Ld. Counsel Sh. Sarvesh Singh, Sh. Shiv Kumar Vats, Sh.
Parmod Kumar Jain, Sh. Arup Ratan Dutta Choudhory, Sh. Deepak Chand, Ms.
Parnita Sharma and Sh. GauravChaturvedi.
The matter is listed arguments on application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 26-07-2025
At 04:00 pm
Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.filed on behalf of the complainant.
Arguments on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. have been heard.
Briefly stated facts of the case is that the complainant was married to Smt.
Tamanna Begwani on 22.05.2010. Thereafter, she did not miss any opportunity to insult the
complainant and his old and ailing parents, as she frequently quarreled over petty issues and
repeatedly threatened to commit suicide. These threats were allegedly made under the
persuasion and instigation of the accused persons. A complaint against the said accused
individuals was filed at Police Station Krishna Nagar on 08.02.2023, and also submitted to the
DCP, District-East, Delhi on 08.02.2023 vide diary no. 1056. GD/SHD. Thereafter, it is
mentioned that Smt. Tamanna Begwani took away both minor sons of the complainant, who
were studying in Delhi, along with all her jewellery. The complainant made several requests for
the custody of his minor sons; however, she allegedly threatened him with dire consequences if
he continued to demand their custody, despite the complainant being the biological father and
having legitimate rights over the children. It is further mentioned that the accused persons
regularly made derogatory remarks to the complainant, stating, “Tumhari koi aukat nahin hai,
tum koi nahi ho,” and, “Tumhe dono bachchon se baat nahi karne denge.” It is also stated that
Smt. Tamanna Begwani frequently visited her parental home at short intervals and was often
occupied with mobile conversations with the aforementioned accused persons, who are her real
-- 1 of 4 --
brothers and father. It is alleged that on the instigation of these accused persons, she attempted
suicide on multiple occasions with the intent to falsely implicate the complainant and his
parents in criminal cases. It is further stated that the father-in-law, namely Sh. Amraw Mal Baid,
and the two brothers-in-law, namely Sh. Piyush Baid and Sh. Jinesh Baid, made illegal demands
of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) from the complainant multiple times, both over
the phone and through relatives. This demand was allegedly made in exchange for the
withdrawal of false cases under charges of dowry cruelty and the Domestic Violence Act. They
also threatened to implicate the complainant and his family members in further false cases if the
amount was not paid, thereby making the life of the complainant and his family “hell.” It is
further mentioned that Smt. Tamanna Begwani has already admitted that the dowry demands
had been fulfilled by her and her in-laws. It is also stated that, in the interest of justice, no
Investigating Officer has made any effort to even summon the accused persons mentioned in the
complaint filed by the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant visited the police
station to inquire about the status of the FIR registration, but his efforts were in vain, as only
verbal assurances were given by the concerned police officials. It is further stated that the
complainant made further visits to the concerned police station, but the police officials remained
unwilling to extend any support or assistance to the complainant.
It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that since the complaint of the
complainant was disclosing commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons, in view
of various authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, it was
bounded duty of the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter.
I have carefully perused the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as the other
material on record. As per the status report filed by the IO, during the course of enquiry, the
statement of the complainant was recorded, and it was revealed that on 19.04.2019, the
complainant’s wife had shifted to her parental home along with their two children, and since
then, she has been residing there. It is further stated that the wife of the complainant had filed a
case vide FIR No. 202/21 under Sections 498A/294B/323/114 of the Indian Penal Code at
Mahila Thana, Shahi Bagh, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The complainant has also filed a divorce case
at Karkardooma Courts vide case number HMA 646/22. Thereafter, it has also been revealed by
the complainant that the alleged persons had demanded a sum of 1 crore for settling the cases.	₹
He further informed that during the mediation proceedings at the Supreme Court, their demand
was raised to 2 crore. It is further mentioned that from the contents of the complaint and the	₹
enquiry conducted so far, it appears prima facie that the matter pertains to a dispute regarding
the settlement amount in connection with the pending cases between both parties. It is further
stated that prima facie, no cognizable offence was found to be made out and the complaint has
-- 2 of 4 --
accordingly been filed.
In this regard, it becomes imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances,
when an application or prayer under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be entertained by the Court.
It is settled proposition of law that the power of Magistrate to give directions under section
156(3) Cr.P.C. is discretionary and the same has to be exercised only when there is requirement
of investigation / custodial interrogation by the police agency. If the evidence is within the
reach of the complainant, usually the directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not given. The
word used in the section 156(3) is “may” whereas the word used in section 154 Cr.P.C. is
“shall”. The wording of this section clearly implies that the police is bound to register an FIR
when information regarding the cognizable offence is given to the police whereas the Magistrate
is not bound to give direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. even though, the complaint discloses
the commission of cognizable offence as a Magistrate has to see whether the investigation by
the police is required or not.
In M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs State, Cited as 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625,
the circumstances when the power of Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be
exercised has been explained.
“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 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.
The 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 interests of justice demand that the police
should step in to held the complainant. The police assistance can
be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 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 Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors."
After going through the complaint and hearing the arguments, it is seen that the
entire facts is known to the complainant or the complainant can get the evidence summoned
through the process of this court and nothing new is to be collected for which the assistance of
the police is required. Even the identity of the proposed accused persons is known to the
complainant and has been mentioned in the complaint. Besides, if after examination of the
complainant, any police assistance is required, the court is within its power to direct
investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C.
-- 3 of 4 --
Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no ground for this court to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Let the application be considered u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
To come up for pre summoning evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 27-11-
2025.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 26-07-2025
-- 4 of 4 --