Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 18 CT Cases / 244/2025 Vijay Kant Pandey Vs. Saroj /0 (Shakarpur)
02-06-2025
Present : Complainant with Ld. Counsel Sh. Sunil Pal.
The matter is listed for filing of ATR.
ATR filed. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 02-06-2025
At 04:00 pm
Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under Section 175 (3) BNSS
filed on behalf of the complainant.
Briefly stated facts of the case is that the complainant runs his office in Veer
Savarkar Block, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092, and on 13/06/2013, accused
number 1 entered into an agreement with the complainant to sell property No. Khata No. 0.9000
hectare. After negotiation, 0.8498 hectare of the said property was sold for Rs. 3,52,91,666
(Rupees three crore fifty-two lakh ninety-one thousand six hundred sixty-six only). It is further
stated that due to a delay in making the remaining payment, the complainant had to pay a
penalty of Rs. 37,14,286/- (Rupees thirty-seven lakh fourteen thousand two hundred eighty-six
only) in 2015. This included Rs. 20 lakh in cash on the remaining land and increased the
balance amount to Rs. 500 per square foot. The total price of Rs. 17,14,286/- was received by
the above-named accused persons. Thereafter, during this period, due to demonetization and the
imposition of GST, buyers did not come forward. Later, due to the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic, there were further obstacles in the sale of the property. It is further mentioned that
after the above situation normalized, only Rs. 55,14,786/- (Rupees fifty-five lakh fourteen
thousand seven hundred eighty-six only) remained payable to the complainant after the total
payment was made. However, the aforementioned accused persons sold 1111 sq. yards of the
plot to someone else. When the complainant objected, the accused persons stated that they
would have a discussion and provide the missing portion of the property from their other land
holdings. It is stated that since the complainant had already paid more than Rs. 3 crores and
could neither back out nor take any legal action, he remained silent and honored the assurances
given by the accused persons. It is further stated that the accused number 1 sold a plot
measuring 31.83 sq. yards and another measuring 31.25 sq. yards, both of which had already
been registered from the same land, to someone else. In total, 1111 sq. yards of the said plot
-- 1 of 4 --
were sold to another party. It is mentioned that all the buyers were required to get the
registration done through the said accused persons only. Further mentioned, the said three
accused persons have neither registered nor handed over 1174 sq. yards of land to the eight
other buyers for the past one year. On the contrary, they are demanding Rs. 55,14,786/- (which
is due to the complainant) along with interest. It is stated that when the complainant started
putting pressure over the past four months, Omveer and Sonu Tyagi began threatening to kill
him. It is mentioned that the complainant has become quite helpless, as the accused persons are
neither providing the 1174 sq. yards of land nor registering it for the eight buyers. Instead, they
are demanding Rs. 55,14,786/- and are threatening to implicate him in false cases using the
same buyers. It is further stated that the complainant is a 59-year-old simple Indian citizen who
supports himself and his family through simple business. He has never been involved in any
legal matter, related or unrelated, until date. It is mentioned that the complainant is very scared
and apprehensive that the accused persons may cause harm to him or have someone else act on
their behalf to do something untoward. It is stated that a complaint was made by the
complainant to the SHO, P.S. Shakarpur, and DCP East via a written complaint dated
20.02.2025. It is further stated that despite numerous efforts by the complainant, no action has
been taken by the local police, and the accused persons continue to threaten the complainant
without fear. They have threatened to falsely implicate the complainant if he does not abandon
the idea of prosecuting accused numbers 1 to 3, and warned of dire consequences. It is
mentioned that since no action has been initiated by the concerned police station at Shakarpur,
Delhi, the complainant has no remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Court. He is not in a
position to collect evidence from his own sources without an investigation by the local police. It
is further stated that due to the illegal and unlawful acts of the accused persons, the complainant
has suffered financial loss, mental pain, agony, trauma, loss of reputation, and defamation.
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 175 (3) BNSS as well as the other
material on record. As per the status report filed by the IO, upon enquiry, it was revealed that
the matter pertains to breach of contract, non-performance of a civil agreement, and monetary
claims arising from a property transaction. The dispute was found to be primarily civil in nature.
The allegations regarding threats to life have not been substantiated with any specific incident,
date, time, or location, nor is there any material available to suggest that such threats occurred
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shakarpur. It is further stated that the property in
-- 2 of 4 --
question is situated in District Ghaziabad (U.P.), and all the alleged persons are also residents of
the same area. Therefore, no part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdictional bounds of
Police Station Shakarpur. It is further stated that the present complaint appears to be of a civil
nature and does not pertain to the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Shakarpur.
In this regard, it becomes imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances,
when an application or prayer under section 175 (3) BNSS (which is akin to previous 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 175 (3) BNSS 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
-- 3 of 4 --
the police is required. Even the identity of the proposed accused persons is known to the
complainant and has been mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has not disputed the
signatures of her husband on the nomination form. Besides, if after examination of the
complainant, any police assistance is required, the court is within its power to direct
investigation under section 225 BNSS.
Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no ground for this court to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 175 (3) BNSS. Accordingly, the application under Section
175 (3) BNSS. is hereby dismissed.
Before parting with the order, cognizance on the complaint under section 210
(1)(a) BNSS is hereby taken.
To come up for pre summoning evidence under Section 223 BNSS on 21-11-
2025.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 02-06-2025
-- 4 of 4 --