Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 1 of 7
CT Cases 443/2025
Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg
PS: Laxmi Nagar
20.08.2026
Present: Sh. DP Katyan, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/s 175(3) BNSS
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application under section 175(3)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) filed on behalf of
the complainant/applicant seeking registration of FIR against the
proposed accused persons as mentioned in the application.
2. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that the accused no. 1
(Pravesh Garg), accused no. 2 (Nisha Garg) & accused no. 3 (Ujjwal
Garg) are known to the complainant and are residing at the address
mentioned in the complaint. Accused nos. 2 and 3 are the wife and son,
respectively, of accused No. 1. The said accused persons have allegedly
been repeatedly disturbing and interfering with the complainant's
private and public life and threatening to defame her. They have
allegedly circulated and uploaded manipulated, fake and obscene
audio, videos and photographs of the complainant on social media
platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, with the
intention of humiliating and defaming her. It is further stated that they
have also allegedly used such material to blackmail and harass the
complainant and demand money for its removal. Consequently, the
complainant has suffered mental, social and reputational harassment.
3. It is stated further stated that accused no. 4, namely Umesh Chandra
-- 1 of 7 --
CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 2 of 7
Pal, is a YouTuber and operates a YouTube channel under the name
"TV29". It is alleged that, in collusion with the other accused persons,
he created and uploaded a fake and obscene video concerning the
complainant on the said channel with the intention of defaming her and
damaging her public image. It is further stated that Accused No. 5,
namely Choudhary Prashant Rajora, is known to the other accused
persons and allegedly uploaded fake videos of the complainant on
Facebook at their instance.
4. It is further stated that upon coming to know about the circulation of
the fake and obscene videos, the complainant requested the accused
persons to immediately remove the same from the social media
platforms. However, instead of complying, the accused persons
allegedly threatened to defame and harass her and deliberately
continued circulating the material for the purpose of blackmailing her.
Consequently, the complainant lodged a police complaint dated
14.08.2024 before the SHO, PS Laxmi Nagar, Delhi; however, no
effective action was taken. It is further stated that the complainant had
earlier also lodged a police complaint dated 12.06.2024 regarding the
circulation of her personal photographs and videos after manipulation
and editing, along with false and fake sexual content, on platforms
including WhatsApp and Facebook for defaming her. It is alleged that
accused Nos. 1 to 3 were responsible for spreading such material with
the intention of tarnishing her reputation. It is further stated that
complainant was allegedly pressurized to withdraw the said complaint
upon an assurance that such acts would not be repeated. However, the
accuseds allegedly continued their activities thereafter.
-- 2 of 7 --
CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 3 of 7
5. It is further stated that the fake and obscene video containing false
content was also allegedly telecast/uploaded through the "TV29"
YouTube channel operated by accused No. 4. Accused no. 5 allegedly
uploaded similar material on Facebook in August 2024 at the instance
of the other accused persons. It is further stated that she therefore seeks
immediate intervention of the cyber-crime authorities and appropriate
directions for removal and prevention of further circulation of the said
photographs and videos. That on 06.02.2025, the complainant again
lodged a police complaint before the SHO, PS Laxmi Nagar, Delhi,
regarding the alleged defamation and circulation of objectionable
material and malicious propaganda against her through WhatsApp
groups, YouTube and Facebook. However, no effective action was
taken by the police/cyber police. It is further stated that on the said
complaint, only an Non Cognizable Report (‘NCR’) u/s 356(2) of the
BNSS, 2023, was recorded on 11.02.2025, and the complainant was
advised to approach the Hon'ble Court for investigation and further
legal action. Thereafter, the complainant approached the higher police
authorities on 05.03.2025/06.03.2025 and also forwarded a copy to the
SHO, PS Laxmi Nagar, on 07.03.2025. Despite the same, no effective
action was taken and no FIR was registered.
6. It is further stated that the accused persons have allegedly continued to
threaten, stalk and harass the complainant with the intention of
blackmailing her and damaging her public and private life. It is further
stated that they have allegedly demanded money from her and
attempted to extort the same. It is further alleged that the accused
persons have abused and quarreled with the complainant and have also
attempted to assault her at a public place. It is further stated that the
-- 3 of 7 --
CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 4 of 7
complainant also approached the higher police authorities, including
the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Delhi, as well as the CAW Cell, Delhi, seeking appropriate action
against the accused. persons. However, no satisfactory or effective
action has been taken. The accuseds have allegedly threatened to
further destroy her public and private reputation, thereby causing the
complainant a genuine apprehension of further harm and harassment.
7. Action Taken Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘ATR’) was called
from the concerned SHO. Enquiry Officer (EO) filed the ATR as per
which he found in the enquiry conducted that the complainant has
alleged that her fake obscene photo and videos are being uploaded on
you tube to defame the complainant. On the complaint of complainant,
NCR No. 15/25 u/s 356(2)BNS was registered in PS Laxmi Nagar on
11.02.25. That the complainant has not given any evidence related to
extortion of money. It was further reported that, on examination, the
video in question was not found to be obscene in nature and that no
cognizable offence was made out.
8. Ld. Counsel for complainant had argued as per the allegation made in
the complaint, therefore, the same is being omitted in order to maintain
brevity.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the
complainant & have gone through the records as well as perused the
report.
10. Before deciding the present application, it becomes imperative to keep
in consideration the circumstances when such an application U/Sec.
-- 4 of 7 --
CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 5 of 7
175 (3) BNSS should be entertained by the Court. In
M/s Skipper
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 ( Delhi ), the
circumstances as to when the power of Magistrate U/Sec. 156 (3)
Cr.P.C (now mirrored in Section 175(3) BNSS with added safeguards)
should be exercised, has been explained. It was held as under:-
“It is true that
Section 156 Cr. P.C empowers a magistrate to
direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this
power has to be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical
manner. Those cases where allegations are not very serious
and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove
allegations, there should be no need to pass order U/s 156(3)
Cr. PC, but cases where the magistrate is of the view that
nature of allegations is such that complainant himself may
not be in position to collect and produce evidence before
court, and interest of justice demand that police should step
in to help complainant, police assistance can be taken.”
11.The scope of the jurisdiction under Section 175(3) BNSS (correspond-
ing to erstwhile Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) is well settled. The power to
direct registration of an FIR and investigation is to be exercised
judiciously and only where the facts of the case so warrant. The Magis-
trate is required to examine whether police investigation is necessary
for collection of evidence which is beyond the reach of the complainant
and whether such direction would advance the cause of justice. The
provision is not intended to be invoked mechanically merely because
the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
12. In the present case, it is noteworthy that the identity of all the proposed
accused persons is known to the complainant. The allegations concern-
ing circulation/uploading of the alleged photographs and videos are
also within the complainant's own knowledge. The complainant can
place before the Court the original or downloaded material,
-- 5 of 7 --
CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 6 of 7
screenshots, links, messages, social-media posts, communications and
other documents relied upon by her and can also examine herself and
other relevant witnesses in support of her allegations.The complainant
has alleged that the material was manipulated and circulated by the
proposed accused persons. However, apart from the general allegation
of their involvement, no specific material has been placed before the
court that the complainant is incapable of producing the material
necessary to establish her allegations. Mere use of electronic or social-
media platforms, by itself, does not make police investigation
indispensable in every case.
13.The allegation of extortion also does not persuade this Court to direct
registration of FIR. Though the complaint alleges that money was
demanded for removal of the material, the ATR specifically records
that no material relating to any such demand or extortion was furnished
during the enquiry. The complaint also does not identify, with
sufficient particulars, the date, mode, amount or specific
communication through which the alleged demand was made. At this
stage, therefore, the allegation remains a bare assertion unsupported by
material warranting police investigation.
14.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present case does not disclose such circumstances
where the assistance of the police is necessary for collection of
evidence which is beyond the reach of the complainant. The evidence
relied upon by the complainant is substantially within her knowledge
and control, the identity of the proposed accused persons is known, and
no specific circumstance requiring police investigation has been
-- 6 of 7 --
CT Cases 443/2025, Alka Raghav Vs. Parvesh Garg, PS: Laxmi Nagar Page No. 7 of 7
demonstrated.
15. Accordingly, the application under Section 175(3) BNSS is
dismissed.
16.It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to
the adjudication of the present application under Section 175(3) BNSS
and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the
allegations.
(Satendra Pal Singh)
JMFC-04/East/KKD Delhi
Date: 20/08/2026(K)
-- 7 of 7 --