Interim Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Case No. 350/2024
Vinod Panwar Vs. Ashok Kumar
PS Pandav Nagar
27.01.2026
Present: Complainant with Ld. Counsel Mr. Gaurav Soni.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 175 (3) OF BNSS
01. By this order, the Court shall dispose of the application of
complainants u/s. 175(3) of BNSS for registration of FIR against the accused
persons u/s. 506/420/120(B)/34 of IPC.
02. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant
works as a property dealer. The complainant works with his known Sh. Bhagat
Singh S/o Shri Deshraj, R/o R-53, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi-91, who is also in
the property works and construction and entered into a collaboration agreement
with the owner Sh. Ashok Kumar on 14.04.2022. The complainant entered into
an agreement to sell (GF, SF & TF) with Sh. Ashok Kumar on 13.06.2023 and
also paid Rs. 15,00,000/- on the same day and the balance amount has been
contracted to be paid by 13.04.2023.
03. It is alleged that in November 2022, complainant came to know
from Bhagat Singh that a notice has been received from Hinduja Housing
Finance on the above house no. E-242, East Vinod Nagar. When complainant
asked Ashok Kumar regarding this, he told him that the loan was not taken in
the name of complainant. The alleged loan was taken in the name of one person
Gautam who works with Sh. Ashok Kumar. Sh. Ashok Kumar assured the
complainant not to worry, he will deposit the full amount of the loan very soon.
CT Case No. 350/2024
Vinod PanwarVs. Ashok Kumar
Page No. 1 of 5
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 1 of 5 --
04. It is further alleged that after multiple ignorance, the complainant
talked about his complaint, …....Sh. Ashok Kumar started threatening him by
stating that the complainant will not be able to do anything to him. Apart from
this, Sh. Ashok Kumar had given complainant a copy of DD worth Rs. 90 lacs
bearing no. 764224 dated 24.02.2023 showed HDFC Bank’s own name. It is
further submitted that Sh. Ashok Kumar had also given two cheques of sum of
Rs. 15 lacs which got bounced.
05. It is further stated that a complaint were filed to SHO Pandav
Nagar physically on 15.03.2023 and another complaint was also sent to the
DCP East throuhg speed post on 13.03.2024 but no avail. Thereafter, the
complainant had left with no other efficacious remedy which compelled him to
file the present complaint before this Court.
06. In M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2001 IV AD
(Delhi), it was held that:
“
It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code
empowers to Magistrate to direct the police to
register a case and intimate 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 complaint himself is in possession of
evidence to prove his allegations there should be
no need to pass orders U/s. 156 (3) of the Code.
This 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 interest of justice demand that the police
should step in the help of the complaint.
CT Case No. 350/2024
Vinod PanwarVs. Ashok Kumar
Page No. 2 of 5
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 2 of 5 --
B.) The Court is supposed to order investigation as
per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Subh Karan Luharuka & Anr. vs.
State & Anr. 2010 (3) JCC 1972, where it is laid down as
under:
“52A. For the guidance of Subordinate Courts, the
procedure to be followed while dealing with an
application U/s 156 (3) of the Code is summarized as
under:
(i) Whenever a Magistrate is called upon to pass orders
under Sec 156 (3) of the code, at the outset, the
Magistrate should ensure that before coming to the Court,
the complainant did approach the police officer in charge
of the Police of Station having jurisdiction over the area
for recording the information available with him
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence by the
persons/persons arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It
should also be examined as to what action was taken by
the SHO, or even by the senior officer of the Police,
when approached by the complainant under Section 154
(3) of the Code.
(ii) The Magistrate should then form his own opinion
whether the facts mentioned in the complaint disclose
commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons
arrayed in the complaint which can be tried in his
jurisdiction. He should also satisfy himself about the need
for investigation by the police in the matter. A
preliminary enquiry as this is permissible even by an
SHO and if no such enquiry has been done by the SHO,
then it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to
consider all these factors. For that purpose, the Magistrate
must apply his mind and such application of mind should
be reflected in the Order passed by him.
Upon a preliminary satisfaction, unless there are
exceptional circumstances to be recorded in writing, a
status report by the police is to be called for before
passing final orders.
(iii) The Magistrate when approached with a complaint
CT Case No. 350/2024
Vinod PanwarVs. Ashok Kumar
Page No. 3 of 5
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 3 of 5 --
under Section 200 of the Code, should invariably proceed
under Chapter XV by taking cognizance of the complaint,
recording evidence and then deciding the question of
issuance of process to the accused.
In that case also, the Magistrate is fully entitled to
postpone the process if it is felt that there is a necessity to
call for a police report under Section 202 of the Code.
(iv) Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed
under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under
Section 156 (3) of the Code is also filed along with a
complaint U/s 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides
not to take cognizance of the complaint. However, in that
case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed
under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about
the pre requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should
also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police
investigation in the matter for collection of evidence
which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor
can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by
the Court at the instance of the complainant, and the
matter is such which calls for investigation by a State
agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent
reasons as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter
XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code.”
07. In the instant case, ATR was called wherein it is submitted by the
EO/SI Sachin Sharma, P.S. Pandav Nagar, Delhi, stating that during the inquiry,
the complainant has been called to join the inquiry but he has not joined the
inquiry till date. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that a case civil suit
vide no. CS no. 455/2024 titled as Vinod Panwar Vs. Ashok Kumar before the
Hon’ble Court of Sh. Somitra Kumar, Ld. DJ-06, KKD Courts and the next
date of hearing is 09.01.2025.
08. I have carefully perused the entire record of the case and have
already heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the application under
consideration.
CT Case No. 350/2024
Vinod PanwarVs. Ashok Kumar
Page No. 4 of 5
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 4 of 5 --
09. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint, this Court is of
the opinion that the in the present case the identity of accused persons are
known to the complainant which is evident from the averments made in the
present complaint. Further, this Court is of the view that the complainant is
privy to the allegations made in present complaint and all the necessary facts
are in the knowledge of the complainant and the complainant can lead evidence
to support the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, in the present case,
no police assistance is required for discovering any evidence which the
complainant cannot collect/produce of his own.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no
merit to the present application and accordingly, the application u/s. 175(3) of
BNSS stands dismissed. However, the complainant is granted an opportunity to
lead pre-summoning evidence in support of her allegations.
11. Re-notify for pre-summoning evidence on 06.03.2026.
Announced in open Court
on 27.01.2026 (PRERNA RAI)
JMFC-02 (EAST)/KKD COURTS/DELHI
CT Case No. 350/2024
Vinod PanwarVs. Ashok Kumar
Page No. 5 of 5
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 5 of 5 --