Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Case No. 1118/2025
Ziauddin Vs. Kapil Mendiratta
PS Geeta Colony
23.01.2026
Present: None for the complainant.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 175 (3) OF BNSS
01. By this order, the Court shall dispose of the application of
complainants u/s. 175(3) of BNSS for registration of FIR against the accused
persons u/s. 406/420/34 of IPC.
02. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in October
2021, complainant Jiyauddin, S/o Hasmuddin purchased a TSR Auto No. DL-
1RZ-7301 from Kapil Mahandiratta owner of Kapil Auto Sales situated at 431,
Jheel Scotter Market, Delhi in Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant paid 90,000/- in
cash and financed Rs. 4,10,000/- @ 12% from the ANR Finlease, Pvt. Ltd. for
3 years. The proposed accused Kapil Mahandiratta gave the TSR Auto bearing
no. DL-1RZ-7301 along with RC, Insurance, Pollution, Fitness Certificate,
Form no. 29&30 and other documents. After some time, complainant got to
know that the said auto was registered in the name of Javed S/o Karimulla and
hypothication was registered in VEE ESS CAPFIN PVT. LTD. When the
complainant told proposed accused Kapil Mahandiratta about this, he said that
both the companies are partner companies and you need not worry, after
completion of loan, I will transfer the RC in his name and also provide NOC.
Kapil Mahandiratta also took Rs. 5,000/- for file charge from the complainant
and got his signatures on loan agreements on loan documents as well as many
CT Case No. 1118/2025
ZiauddinVs. Kapil Mendiratta
Page No. 1 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 1 of 6 --
blank papers, stamped papers and told that all the documents are required to be
deposited in Burari Transport Authority for Hypothecation.
03. It is alleged that the complainant paid Rs. 15,500/- for 36 months,
thus he deposited total Rs. 5,58,000/- to proposed accused Kapil Mahandiratta
who is director in ANR Finlease, Pvt. Ldt. It is further alleged that on
26.10.2024, the complainant went to the office of 427, Jheel Khurenja, Scooter
Market, Delhi and paid his last due and asked the proposed accused Kapil
Mahandiratta to transfer the RC on his name and provide NOC, the proposed
accused told that it will take some time.
04. It is further alleged that on 13.03.2025, complainant visited the
office of accused no. 3 wherein he got to know that accused no. 1 had taken a
loan of Rs. 3,80,000/- from the accused no. 3 against the blank signed loan
documents and papers of the complainant and permit holder of the said auto. It
is further alleged that proposed accused Kapil Mahandiratta takes huge amount
from NBFC ANR FINLEASE PVT. LTD. on the documents of the sold
vehicles without telling the customers.
05. It is further stated that a written complaints were made to Police
Station Geeta Colony, the Hon’ble LG, Govt. NCT of Delhi and other higher
authorities through speed post on 01.05.2025 however, no action was taken by
the police. Due to non-action by the SHO, PS Geeta Colony, on 05.06.2025, the
complainant sent a complaint dated 02.06.2025 through speed post to the DCP,
North-East District, New Seelampur, Shahdara and other dignitaries.
Thereafter, E.O. called the accused no. 1 and complainant at the police station
Geeta Colony wherein accused no. 1 admitted that the complainant had repaid
the entire loan and no dues are stood against the complainant and gave an
CT Case No. 1118/2025
ZiauddinVs. Kapil Mendiratta
Page No. 2 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 2 of 6 --
undertaking before the E.O. in this ragard that he will issue NOC of the said
TSR auto to the complainant on or before 15.07.2025. However, the accused
no. 1 has not obeyed the said undertaking after expiry of 15.07.2025. After
some time, the complainant got to know that the accused no. 1 has settled his
family in America and accused no. 1 is also planning to go to America.
Thereafter, the complainant had left with no other efficacious remedy which
compelled him to file the present complaint before this Court.
06. 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.
B.) 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
CT Case No. 1118/2025
ZiauddinVs. Kapil Mendiratta
Page No. 3 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 3 of 6 --
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.
(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
CT Case No. 1118/2025
ZiauddinVs. Kapil Mendiratta
Page No. 4 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 4 of 6 --
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.”
08. In the instant case, ATR was called wherein it is submitted by the
EO/ASI Rahul, P.S. Geeta Colony, Delhi, stating that during the inquiry, the
alleged Kapil Mahandiratta, Proprietor of ANR Finlease Pvt. Ltd. joined the
enquiry, and told that he has financed the vehicle no. DL-1RZ-7301 to
Ziauddin and he has paid all the EMIs and he has deleted the hypothecation
from transport department through online portal and he has no dispute with him
and provided the particulars of the vehicle and he has provided NOC on
18.10.2025 and a copy of hypothecation termination receipt of VEE ESS
Capfin Pvt. Ltd. The complainant joined the enquiry and reiterated the same
facts mentioned in the complaint.
09. In the present case, it is further submitted by the EO/ASI Rahul,
P.S. Geeta Colony, Delhi that from the enquiry conducted and considering
above mentioned facts and circumstances, the matter is mere dispute of RC
transfer and providing NOC of loan. The alleged Kapil has provided NOC of
the loan. No monetary loss has been happened to the complainant therefore no
CT Case No. 1118/2025
ZiauddinVs. Kapil Mendiratta
Page No. 5 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 5 of 6 --
cognizable offence is made out.
10. I have carefully perused the entire record of the case and have
already heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the application under
consideration.
11. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint, this Court is of
the opinion that the in the present case the identity of accused persons are
known to the complainant which is evident from the averments made in the
present complaint. Further, this Court is of the view that the complainant is
privy to the allegations made in present complaint and all the necessary facts
are in the knowledge of the complainant and the complainant can lead evidence
to support the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, in the present case,
no police assistance is required for discovering any evidence which the
complainant cannot collect/produce of his own.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no
merit to the present application and accordingly, the application u/s. 175(3) of
BNSS stands dismissed. However, the complainant is granted an opportunity to
lead pre-summoning evidence in support of her allegations.
13. Re-notify for pre-summoning evidence on 16.03.2026.
Announced in open Court
on 23.01.2026 (PRERNA RAI)
JMFC-02 (EAST)/KKD COURTS/DELHI
CT Case No. 1118/2025
ZiauddinVs. Kapil Mendiratta
Page No. 6 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 6 of 6 --