Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 21 CT Cases / 870/2025 SMT RAJBALA Vs. SH VINEET KUMAR /0 (Gazipur)
19.05.2026
Present: Complainant in person with Ld Counsel Sh. Ved Prakash
Argument on the application u/s 175(3) BNSS was heard by the
undersigned on 11.04.2026 and matter was listed for order for today.
ORDER
01. An application u/s 175(3) BNSS along with complaint u/s 223 BNSS has
been moved by the complainant for initiating criminal proceedings against the
respondents/accused persons 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, it is stated that on 13.07.2025,
at about 8.30 p.m, when there was no family member at complainant's house, respondent
no.1 entered complainant's room and he locked the room from inside and tightly caught
the complainant from back side and started pressing her breast forcibly, pushed the
complainant on bed and tried to make physical relations with complainant and when
complainant started screaming loudly, respondent no.1 pressed the mouth of the
Ct no. 870/25 Smt. Rajbala Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and Ors. 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
complainant with his hand and tried to undress the complainant by removing her lowers.
It is further stated that complainant opposed the same with great difficulty and saved
herself. It is further stated that respondent no.1 badly beaten the complainant with a
plastic water pipe due to which complainant suffered many deep injuries and when
complainant started screaming loudly, respondent no.1 opened the latch of the room out
of fear and ran away from the room.
3a. It is further stated that the complainant called the police on 100 number but the
complainant's call was not received, so the complainant went to PS Ghazipur, Delhi to
register her complaint and complainant was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital for
treatment, where MLC bearing No.304/2025 was registered at around 11:00 p.m, dated
13.07.2025. It is further stated that after medical examination complainant was send to
her home.
3b. It is further stated that on 08.06.2025, complainant was cooking food in her room,
respondent no.2/brother-in-law/Nandoi entered the room and said that "I want to eat
food" thereafter, complainant served the food to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2
forcefully caught hold the complainant from back side and pressed her chest and said
that "he wanted to eat this food” and when complainant told this to her mother-in-law,
her mother-in-law said that "he is her brother-in-law, he keeps joking and laughing, what
will happen to you, he will be satisfied". It is stated that complainant kept quiet, her
mother-in-law wanted to make her a characterless woman and wanted to defame her in
the society and relatives.
3c. It is further stated that when complainant informed her husband about
the incident, her husband also did not pay any attention what she said because
complainant's husband is a drunkard and no one takes care of the complainant and the
Ct no. 870/25 Smt. Rajbala Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and Ors. 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
complainant has also two small children. It is further stated that respondent no.1 and 2
having bad intentions towards the complainant from the very beginning and have been
indulging in obscene acts with the complainant.
3d. It is further stated that complainant has been enduring the oppression
and atrocities/torture at the hands of the respondents because she has been maintaining
her house in the hope that perhaps one day everything will be right but till date there has
been no change in the behavior of respondents. It is further stated that the complainant
has become very upset and disturbed by the daily obscene acts and fights of respondents
and she is scared and apprehensive that the respondents may kill the complainant at any
time.
3e. It is further the case of the complainant that for these grievances, the
complainant had given a written complaint, dated 16.07.2025 to SHO of PS Gazipur,
Delhi and to DCP East, Delhi. Being unsatisfied with the action on the 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 SI Satya Prakash for action and who submitted that on 13/07/2025, a complaint was
lodged in PS Ghazipur by complainant and same was marked to him on the complaint of
complainant. It is stated that when SI asked complainant to give her statement,
complainant said that she would give her statement after getting her medical done, after
that complainant herself went to LBS Hospital for medical examination (MLC) and after
getting MLC 304/25 done on 13/07/2025, she went to her home, who even after repeated
phone calls, did not give her statement. It is further stated in ATR that on the next day
i.e. 14/07/25, complainant submitted her written complaint to DO and complainant in
her complaint, did not make any serious allegations against Vinit Kumar (brother-in-law)
and others. It is further stated that in the MLC no. 304/25 dated 13.07.2025 of the
Ct no. 870/25 Smt. Rajbala Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and Ors. 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
complainant, doctor had given opinion as nature of injuries as simple. It is further stated
that he asked complainant to provide footage, video and eye witness regarding the
quarrel but she could not produce due to which no cognizable offence was found. It is
stated that complainant and her husband used to keep quarrel with her mother-in-law
Kanta, due to these reasons, Shashikanta has filed a complaint with SDM (Geeta
Colony) for eviction of her son Sumit. It is stated that after investigation, no cognizable
offence was found in the complaint.
05. Record perused. Submissions heard.
06. At the outset, it is imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances
when an application U/Sec.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 cir-
cumstances when the powers of Magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should be exercised, has
been explained. It was held that:
"Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initi-
ate investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously not in mechan-
ical manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and com-
plainant himself in possession of evidence to prove allegation, 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
Ct no. 870/25 Smt. Rajbala Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and Ors. 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
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. As per copy of MLC of complainant already on
record dated 13/07/2025 i.e date of incidence alleged by complainant it is mentioned that
‘
alleged history of violence at victim residence at 8.30 pm by mother-in-law, sister-in-
law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law’s husband, jethani and devrani. As per victim she is
beaten with pipe, rod, she is also punched by. No history of sexual assault.’ Further the
written complaint dated 14.07.2025 given by complainant to PS concerned mentioned
‘
that on 13.07.2025 that complainant was beaten’. The complainant in her complaint
made allegations regarding sexual assault but the same fact is neither mentioned in her
MLC nor in her complaint dated 14.07.2025 to PS concerned. I am of the view that, the
identity of the respondents/accused persons are 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, police inquiry can be had u/s 225 BNSS for
verification of any documents or for any other purpose, if required.
Ct no. 870/25 Smt. Rajbala Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and Ors. 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
10. Accordingly with the above observations, application u/s 175(3) BNSS is
dismissed.
11. Put up for complainant evidence on 25.09.2026.
(Sachin)
JMFC-03/E/KKD/19.05.2026
Ct no. 870/25 Smt. Rajbala Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and Ors. 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --