Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SH SACHIN JMFC-03, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CT NO. 317/2024
Pramod Kr Gupta
Vs
Vipin Kr Gupta
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 156(3) CR.PC
17.12.2024.
Present: Complainant in person with Ld Counsel Sh Umesh Chand
Mishra.
01 An application u/s 156(3) has been moved by the complainant
against the respondents for the offences under section 420 of IPC with a prayer
that the complaint be sent to the concerned PS for registration of FIR. In view of
application u/s 156(3), status report was summoned from the concerned PS of
Gazipur. The case is fixed for orders today.
02. I have carefully perused the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well
as the other material on record.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
03. The facts as mentioned in the complaint are that on 09.05.2018,
the respondent has approached the complainant in his office at Opposite Mother
Dairy Booth Ganesh Nagar, Delhi and demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from the
complainant. The respondent showed his urgent need of money i.e. he has to pay
the EMI of his vehicle. As his vehicle was impounded at PS Mandawali at the
instance of the Financer. The respondent promised the complainant to repay the
amount within period on or before two months. The complainant considering
the friendly relationship and familiarity with the respondent gave Rs. 3 lakhs to
the respondent in the presence of his another friend and office staff, in his
office. He further stated that on 25.06.2018, the respondent had issued a cheque
bearing no. 073198 dated 25.06.2018 of Rs. 3 Lakhs drawn in Central Bank
Acharaya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, in favour of the complainant, in
order to discharge his legal liability. The complainant relied upon the assurance
of the respondent, presented the said cheque to his banker i.e Punjab National
Bank Madhuban Branch, Delhi in his account number 2572000101889968, but
the cheque was returned vide return memo dated 27.06.2018 with remarks
funds insufficient in the account of the respondent. The complainant
approached the respondent and told about the dishonour of his cheque and asked
to make the payment. The aggrieved complainant approached the respondent
again and again but the respondent always made promise to make the payment
and he never denied his liability to make the payment. The complainant further
submitted that the respondent had fraudulently and dishonestly induced him to
give money to him and respondent knowingly issued the cheque in question of
such account where no sufficient amount was there, and respondent
intentionally did not maintain the sufficient balance in his account for the
encashment of the said cheque in order to cause wrongful cause to the
complainant and wrongful benefit for himself. It is further stated by the
-- 2 of 5 --
3
complainant that he arranged the meeting with the respondent regarding the
payment of the amount to which respondent submitted that he is unable to make
the payment of the entire cheque amount. Thus on 10.05.2021, the respondent
handed over a DD number 231752 dated 16.05.2018 of Rs. 1,36,340/- drawn on
Central Bank of India to the complainant by saying that he had prepared said
DD in order to clear the payment of due EMI of his vehicle but Financer did not
accept the said DD for being a lesser amount. He told the complainant that he
will get it cancelled through his banker and will pay the said amount to the
complainant. The complainant has further submitted that he has also raised the
demand by issuing Legal Demand notice dated 29.01.2024, however, the
respondent refused to receive the same. The complainant further submitted that
relying upon the promise of the respondent, he did not initiate any legal action
for the recovery of his money borrowed by the respondent as respondent has
agreed to repay the said amount on or before the period of two months w.e.f.
09.05.2018 but the respondent did not pay the amount.
04. It is further the case of the complainant that for these grievances,
the complainant had given a written complaint to SHO and to the DCP office
dated 09.02.2024. Being unsatisfied with the action on the above mentioned
complaint, the complainant has filed the present application for registration of
FIR.
05. ATR was called in the matter. The IO has filed the reply
according to which the matter is of civil nature or of cheque bounce case. No
cognizable offence is made out.
07. At the outset, it is imperative to keep in consideration the circum-
-- 3 of 5 --
4
stances 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 judi-
ciously not in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations
are not very serious and complainant himself in possession of evi-
dence to prove allegation, there should be no need to pass order U/s
156 Cr.P.C" .
08. 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 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."
09. The word used in Section 156(3) Cr.PC is 'may'. The powers under
this section are discretionary in nature and an FIR cannot be registered
mechanically by invoking these provisions.
10. In view of the material on record, preliminary enquiry report of
the IO and after hearing the submissions of counsel, I am of the view that, the
identity of the respondent is known to the complainant, all the facts and
circumstances of the case also appears to be within the knowledge of the
-- 4 of 5 --
5
complainant and evidence can be conveniently taken without assistance of
police investigation. In the facts of the present case, there appears no
requirement of police investigation. Further, if there is any need, police
inquiry can be had u/s 202 Cr.P.C. for verification of any documents or for
any other purpose, if required.
11. Accordingly with the above observations, application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
12. Put up for consideration of complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC for
21.05.2025.
Announced in the Open
Court on 17.12.2024 Sachin)
JMFC-03/E/KKD/17.12.2024
-- 5 of 5 --