Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 42 CT Cases / 237/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Taruna Chowdhary Sachdeva /0 (Shakarpur)
Ld. APP for the State is looking after the work of two courts.
Main Steno is on leave
13-11-2025
Present : Ms. Suchita Dixit, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under Section 175 (3) BNSS
filed on behalf of the complainant.
Arguments on application under Section 175 (3) BNSS have been heard.
Briefly stated facts of the case is that the complainant Bank is a corporate body
constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955), having its
corporate office at State Bank of India, Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-440021. It is a body with perpetual succession and can sue and be sued in its own
name. It has various local head offices, including one at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi, and
several branches throughout Delhi, including one at Vikas Marg Branch situated at S-23, School
Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092, which is under the administrative control of the Local Head
Office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001, and is inter-alia engaged in the activities of
banking. It is further stated that in the ordinary course of business of the complainant Bank, the
accused, Taruna Chowdhary Sachdeva W/o Ankur Sachdeva, applied for the grant of a home
loan for a sum of 2,54,11,864/- with the complainant Bank at Vikas Marg Branch, situated at	₹
S-23, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092. She submitted the application form, a copy of
her PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, declarations, and executed the required documents for availing
the home loan from the complainant. On the basis of the information and documents submitted
by the accused, the complainant Bank sanctioned a home loan of 190.00 lakhs on 12.12.2017	₹
in her favour and disbursed the said loan amount to the accused as per the payment plan by
opening Loan Account No. 37474200440. It is mentioned that the accused was required to repay
the above loan amount in EMIs; however, she failed to do so, and the loan account was
classified as NPA on 09.08.2019. Consequently, the loan account was migrated to SARB for
hard recovery. It is further mentioned that on suspicion of fraud, an investigation was conducted
by Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Chief Manager (I.O.), BCDM, Local Head Office, New Delhi,
who, vide his report dated 12.05.2023, observed that as per the CIBIL report dated 10.02.2023
of the accused, Mrs. Taruna Chowdhary Sachdeva, her liability towards SBI and others as
borrower was 333.00 lakhs, with an overdue amount of 73.79 lakhs. As per the CIBIL report,	₹ ₹
the accused had also availed two other loans of 90.06 lakhs each from other banks. During the	₹
period from November 2017 to January 2018, Taruna Chowdhary Sachdeva had availed three
house loans totaling 370.12 lakhs—one from SBI RACPC Karkardooma and two from Punjab	₹
National Bank, Sarita Vihar, Delhi—by committing fraud and misrepresentation. It is thereafter
-- 1 of 3 --
stated that upon suspecting the above fraud, the complainant Bank made a written complaint
dated 17.02.2024 to the SHO, Shakarpur, New Delhi, disclosing cognizable offences committed
by Taruna Chowdhary Sachdeva. However, to the knowledge of the complainant Bank, no
enquiry has been conducted into the fraud and cheating committed by the accused, nor has the
complainant ever been informed about the progress of any enquiry into the matter. It is further
stated that on account of inaction on the part of the SHO, PS Shakarpur, New Delhi, regarding
the complaint dated 17.02.2024, the complainant made a written complaint dated 19.10.2024 to
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, New Delhi, requesting that the matter be
looked into and that suitable and necessary directions be issued to the SHO, PS Shakarpur, for a
fair and proper enquiry, registration of an FIR, and conducting a detailed investigation, as public
money is involved in the commission of fraud and cheating. It is further stated that even after
the aforesaid complaints made to the SHO and the DCP, no action has been taken by the
concerned police till date.
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, a complaint had been received by the
police from the complainant, Naynit Raja, vide ICMS Ref. No. 816805224400176 dated
17.02.2024 at Police Station Shakarpur. It is further stated that a complaint had also been made
by the complainant in the office of the DCP concerned. It is mentioned that the complaint was
duly enquired into by SI Shubham, and after conducting a preliminary enquiry and examining
the relevant documents, it was concluded that no cognizable offence was found to have been
committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi. The matter was
determined to be civil in nature, and therefore the complaint was filed accordingly. It is further
mentioned that no cognizable offence was made out during the course of enquiry, and hence no
further police action was initiated against the accused person. It is thereafter stated that, as no
cognizable offence was made out, no FIR was registered in the matter. It is further stated that
the complainant was duly informed that no cognizable offence had been made out.
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
-- 2 of 3 --
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 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.
Let the application be considered u/s 223 BNSS.
Put up for PSE on 06-04-2026.
(P. Bhargav Rao)
JMFC-05(East)/KKD Court
Delhi 13-11-2025
-- 3 of 3 --