Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct No.9541/2024 Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 1 of 6
CT Cases 9541/2024
Ms. Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar, Mandawali
13.02.2026
Present: Complainant in person with Ld Counsel Sh Ankush Sharma.
ORDER
01. An application u/s 175(3) BNSS along with complaint u/s 223 BNSS
has been moved by the complainant against the respondent/accused for the offences
u/s 316/318 of BNS with a prayer that application be sent to the concerned PS for
registration of FIR. In view of the aforesaid application, status report was summoned
from the concerned PS.
02. I have carefully perused the application u/s 175(3) BNSS as well as
the other material on record.
03. As per the facts mentioned in the complaint, that on 14.04.2024,
complainant entered into a deal with the respondent for purchasing a second-hand
Swift Dzire LXI Car bearing registration no. DL-1ZB-4091, chassis no.
MA3EJKD1S00B08352, engine no. K12MN1983454, registration date 26.08.2017,
color- Arctic White, owned by the respondent and the said deal was finalized for a
total sale consideration of Rs.2,57,000/-. It is further stated that the complainant
paid a sum of Rs.2,48,000/- to the respondent through bank transfers in the
following manner:-
a) Rs.80,000/- vide UPI, ref. no. 447135843633 on 14.04.2024 through Paytm by
-- 1 of 6 --
Ct No.9541/2024 Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 2 of 6
Sh. Nitendra Kumar to the account of Smt. Neha Singh (wife of the respondent),
UPI ID: 9818908972@paytm.
b) Rs.50,000/- vide UPI Ref. No.447136179742 on 14.04.2024 through Paytm by
Sh. Nitendra Kumar to the account of Smt. Neha Singh (wife of the respondent),
UPI ID: 9818908972@paytm.
c) on Rs.98,000/- vide UPI Ref. No.410514380335 14.04.2024 through Paytm by
Ms. Sheetal to the account of Vansh Singh having UPI ID:
sweetvanshsingh-1@oksbi.
d) Rs.20,000/-in cash.
3a. It is further stated that all the abovesaid payments were
made by the complainant as per directions of the respondent and a sale agreement to
this effect was executed between the parties on 16.04.2024, whereby the respondent
had duly acknowledged the receiving of Rs.2,48,000/- from the complainant. It is
further stated that it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount of
Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the complainant to the respondent after handing over of
the NOC of the said vehicle to the complainant within 15 days from the date of
execution of the said agreement dated 16.04.2024. It is further stated that, respondent
failed to handover the NOC of the said vehicle to the complainant even after passing
of four months from the date of execution of the sale-agreement dated 16.04.2024,
despite repeated requests and demands of the complainant.
3b. It is further stated that complainant even requested the
respondent to refund back her entire amount of Rs.2,48,000/- alongwith interest on
the pretext that the respondent has failed to fulfill his promise i.e. to handover the
NOC of the vehicle to the complainant, but all such lawful and genuine requests of
the complainant were fell to deaf ears of the respondent, rather the respondent had
threatened the complainant for dire consequences if she ever dared to ask for the
NOC. It is further stated that aggrieved by the act, conduct and behaviour of the
-- 2 of 6 --
Ct No.9541/2024 Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 3 of 6
respondent, the complainant lodged a written complaint with P.S. Mandawali, Delhi
on 02.09.2024 against the respondent thereby requesting to take stern action in the
matter and to help the complainant in the grant of NOC from the respondent but no
action was taken by the police on the said complaint.
3c. It is further stated that the complainant received a legal notice
from the respondent vide legal notice dated 30.08.2024, through which the
complainant came to know that the respondent had stood surety against the Loan no.
XVFPNDA00001958919, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. of
his brother Sh. Kishan Kumar and the said vehicle is a surety asset in the said loan.
3d. It is further stated that the aforesaid vehicle is a commercial vehicle and the
same was purchased by the complainant for earning some income but due to non
transfer of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant owing to non-issuance
of NOC by the respondent, the said vehicle is lying in stationery condition at the
house of the complainant and the complainant is suffering mental agony, trauma
and financial losses day by day.
3e. It is further stated that from the abovesaid facts and circumstances, it is crystal
clear that the respondent had malafide intentions since beginning and in pursuance
of the same he failed to handover the NOC of the said vehicle to the complainant
within the agreed period of 15 days or even after that till date despite repeated
requests and demands of the complainant. The respondent had concealed and
suppressed the fact that he is a surety for his brother in the loan and his car (which
was sold to the complainant) is a surety asset/property in the said loan. It is stated
that respondent has committed cheating, fraud and misrepresentation with his client
punishable u/s 318 BNS. It is further stated that respondent is
enjoying/misappropriating the amount of Rs.2,48,000/- since April, 2024 till date.
That neither respondent have handed over the NOC of the said vehicle nor refunded
the amount of the complainant, thus respondent caused wrongful loss to the
-- 3 of 6 --
Ct No.9541/2024 Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 4 of 6
complainant and made wrongful gains to himself and have committed criminal
breach of trust punishable U/s 316 BNS.
3f. It is further the case of the complainant that for these grievances, the
complainant had given a written complaint, dated 02.09.2024 to PS Mandawali and
also sent written complaint to Commissioner of Police, ACP concerned, DCP
concerned on 07.10.2024. Being unsatisfied with the action on the above mentioned
complaints, the complainant has filed the present application for registration of
FIR.
04. ATR was called in the matter, as per ATR aforesaid complaint was
marked to ASI Brijesh Kumar for action, during enquiry, IO met with complainant
Ms. Tina. It is stated that enquiry was conducted on the aspect of the bank
transactions and found that said amount was transferred from the account of the
complainant. It is stated that respondent was also enquired who stated that if
complainant pay her remaining amount, then he is ready to provide NOC of said
vehicle. It is further stated that as per inquiry, matter is related to remaining amount
which was decided earlier and respondent is ready to provide NOC of vehicle and
clear all challan before the date of sale the vehicles, hence, no police action has been
required in this regard.
05. Record perused. Submissions heard.
06. At the outset, it is imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances
when an application u/s. 175 (3) BNSS which replaces the 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
-- 4 of 6 --
Ct No.9541/2024 Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 5 of 6
circumstances when the powers of Magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should be ex-
ercised, 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 judiciously not
in mechanical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very seri-
ous and complainant himself in possession of evidence to prove al-
legation, there should be no need to pass order U/s 156 Cr.P.C" .
07. 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."
08. The word used in Section 175 (3) BNSS is 'may'. The powers under
this section are discretionary in nature and an FIR cannot be registered mechanically
by invoking these provisions.
09. 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/accused is known to the complainant, all the facts and
circumstances of the case also appears to be within the knowledge of the
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, inquiry or police investigation
-- 5 of 6 --
Ct No.9541/2024 Tina Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 6 of 6
can be had u/s 225 BNSS for verification of any documents or for any other
purpose, if required.
10. Accordingly with the above observations, application u/s 175 (3)
BNSS is dismissed.
11. The case be re-listed for examination of complainant and any other
witnesses produced by her as per provision u/s 223 BNSS.
12. Put up for further proceedings on 27.07.2026.
(Sachin)
JMFC-03/E/KKD/13.02.2026.
-- 6 of 6 --