Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Cases 10/2025
Jakir Vs. Vinnay
PS: Geeta Colony
16.01.2025 at 04:00 PM.
Present: None for the complainant.
By this order, the Court shall dispose of the application of
complainant under section 175 (3) of BNSS in which the complainant has
prayed for registration of FIR against the accused persons u/s 309 (2) and 351
(3) of BNS, 2023.
Succinctly put, it is the case of the complainant that he got
financed his E-rickshaw from Bansal Credit Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Financer’) and that he had defaulted in the payment of two installments. It is
case of the complainant that on 01.01.2024 at about 03:00 pm, while he was
driving his E-rickshaw near Khureji Petrol Pump, Vinnay (proposed accused)
came to him and took him to ‘Jai Durga Automobile’ shop by stating that ‘
Ki
kuch baat karni hai’. It is submitted that Vinnay called 3-4 persons and
snatched the E-rickshaw of the complainant in which the purse of the
complainant with Rs. 1100/- in it and RC and payment receipts of the E-
rickshaw were kept and took the same to the godown of ‘Jai Durga
Automobile’.
It is further submitted that when Vinnay came out from the
godown, he returned the purse of the complainant but he kept the receipts of
payment and RC of the E-rickshaw and Rs. 1100/-. It is further submitted that
when the complainant asked for his documents and money, one associate of
Vinnay lifted his shirt and showed a
desi katta to the complainant and told the
complainant ‘
ghar jayega ya upar jayega’. It is further submitted that they put
CT Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 1 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 1 of 7 --
the signatures of the complainant on one paper and said ‘
yadi shikayat thane
mai karega to jaan se mardenge sidha ghar hi jana’.
It is further submitted that the complainant was afraid and
accordingly he did not immediately make any complainant with the police.
However, subsequently, a complainant was made to SHO PS Geeta Colony on
03.12.2024 after being given moral support by a friend. It is further submitted
that one written complaint was also addressed to DCP East Delhi, however, no
action has been taken against any accused persons.
It is in light of the aforesaid averments that the present
application has been filed under Section 175(3) of BNSS (erstwhile Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C.) for registration of FIR against the accused persons.
The law relating to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been clarified in
the following cases:
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 Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 2 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 2 of 7 --
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.
CT Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 3 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 3 of 7 --
(iii) The Magistrate when approached with a
complaint 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.”
In the instant case, ATR was called wherein it is submitted by SI
Arvind Kumar Saini that the complainant has endorsed his version during
inquiry. It is further stated in the ATR that on 21.12.2024, the complainant
again visited PS Geeta Colony and at that time SI Arvind Kumar Saini was
himself present and complainant stated that he wishes to withdraw his
complaint as he has settled the matter with the company and as per the
CT Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 4 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 4 of 7 --
settlement, he is ready to pay company debt and he requires two months to
finalize the same. It is further stated that the complainant also stated that he
does not want any action on his complaint and there was no such incident of
showing weapon to him by Vinnay and his associates. The ATR is accompanied
by the copy of the statement of complainant dated 21.12.2024.
In the further stated in the ATR that during the course of inquiry,
the company was contacted which presented copy of the loan agreement;
account statement reflecting the installments paid by the complainant and the
amount due from him; the copy of the inventory and written statement dated
01.12.2024 signed by the complainant wherein the complainant was informed
about the deposition of the RC of his rickshaw and time given to him to get the
same released. The ATR is accompanied by the copy of the loan agreement,
account statement, inventory and written statement.
It is further stated in the ATR that during inquiry, the place of
incident i.e. Jai Durga Automobile was visited and statement of its owner
namely Pawan Kumar was recorded who has stated that on 01.12.2024 at
around 02:00 pm, when he was present at the shop, the complainant and two
men from Bansal Credit Company Vinnay and his associate came to his shop
and discussed about the remaining amount of installment pursuant to which
complainant sought some time to make the payment and he got furious and he
handed over the keys of E-rickshaw. It is stated that Pawan Kumar has
submitted that the parties agreed that by 20.12.2024 the matter would be settled
and there was no such incident of showing fire arm and snatching of the e-
rickshaw, RC and Rs. 1100/- from the pursue of the complainant. Copy of
statement of Pawan Kumar is attached with the ATR.
It is submitted in the ATR that as per the enquiry conducted, the
matter pertains to the payment of remaining installments of the E-rickshaw
CT Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 5 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 5 of 7 --
financed by the Financer and that the complainant had full knowledge about
deposition of his RC and time was given to him to clear the outstanding
amount. Furthermore, complainant himself had stated that he does not want to
any action to be taken on his complaint and therefore, no cognizable offence is
made out.
I have heard Counsel for complainant on the present application
and have carefully perused the record of the case including the ATR placed on
record.
As per clause 6.1 of the loan agreement dated 17.02.2024 filed
along with the ATR, the lender is entitled to take physical possession of the
vehicle to enforce its security in case of any default in payment of any
installment by the borrower and admittedly the complainant has not paid the
entire loan amount. Therefore, it appears from the record of the case that the
Financer was legally entitled to take back the possession of the impugned
vehicle from the complainant on account of the non-payment of the loan
installments by the complainant. Furthermore, as per the statement dated
21.12.2024 given by the complainant in PS Geeta Colony, he has stated that
there was no such incident of showing weapon to him by Vinnay and his
associates or of theft of Rs.1100/. Another point that warrants attention is that
the incident alleged by the complainant is dated 01.12.2024 whereas complaint
to SHO PS Geeta Colony has been given only on 03.12.2024. The delay in
making the compliant has also not been satisfactorily explained by the
complainant which further raises doubt on the version put forth by the
complainant.
Therefore, from the perusal of the entire record of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that the matter pertains to the payment of remaining
installments of the E-rickshaw financed by the Financer and the dispute in
CT Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 6 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 6 of 7 --
question is civil in nature and the complainant is trying to give a criminal
colour to the same. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present application
filed by the complainant and the same stands dismissed .
Announced in open Court
on 16.01.2025 (NEHA GARG)
JMFC-02 (EAST)/KKD COURTS/DELHI
CT Cases No. 10/2025
Jakir vs. Vinnay
Page No. 7 of 7
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 7 of 7 --