Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Case No. 1395/2025
Harjinder Singh Vs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
PS Geeta Colony
15.04.2026
Present: Mr. N.S. Tomar, Ld. Counsel 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
purposed accused persons u/s. 79/115(2)/126/324(4)/333/351/3(5) of
BNS.
02. Succinctly put, it is the case of the complainants that the
complainant is residing in the property in question alongwith his family
members and had purchased the same about two years ago. It is alleged
that the accused persons, who are residing on the first floor of the same
building, have been continuously harassing, threatening and assaulting
the complainant and his family members with the intention to forcibly
disposess them.
03. It is further alleged that on various occasions, including
03.01.2024, 01.12.2024, 05.12.2024, 04.01.2025 and 12.04.2025, the
accused persons abused, assaulted and criminally intimidated the
complainant and his wife, caused damage to their property, attempted
trespass and even threatened to eliminate the complainant and his family.
The complainant has also alleged that CCTV cameras installed at the
CT Case No.1395/2025
Harjinder SinghVs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
Page No. 1 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 1 of 6 --
premises captured the incident dated 12.04.2025 wherein the accused
persons allegedly vandalized vehicles and attempted to break open the
complainant’s house.
04. It is the grievance of the complainant that despite repeated
complaints made to the SHO, PS Geeta Colony, and to senior police
officials including ACP and DCP concerned, no FIR has been registered
and no proper action has been taken by the police authorities. It is in light
of the aforesaid averments that the present application has been filed u/s.
175(3) of BNSS for registration of FIR against the accused persons.
05. 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 Case No.1395/2025
Harjinder SinghVs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
Page No. 2 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 2 of 6 --
06. 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
CT Case No.1395/2025
Harjinder SinghVs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
Page No. 3 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 3 of 6 --
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 under Chapter XII of the Code when
an application under Section 156 (3) of the
Code is also filed alongwith 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.”
CT Case No.1395/2025
Harjinder SinghVs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
Page No. 4 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 4 of 6 --
07. In the instant case, ATR was called wherein it is submitted
by ASI Satish Chand who stated that the matter was investigated by the
ASI, wherein the complainant alleged that the accused persons namely
Dinesh Arora @ Bittoo, Kartik Aora @ Sahib, Harman Arora and
Virender Suri attacked his house, damaged his scooty and CCTV camera
and extended threats to kill. IO further stated that during inquiry the
CCTV footage and material on record were examined, which revealed
that the scooty and CCTV camera were found damaged and threats were
prime facie established. Accordingly, action u/Sec. 174 BNSS was
initiated and NCR No. 0057/25 dated 06.11.2025 under Section
324(4)/351(2) BNS was registered.
08. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the allegations made
in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences, including
offences relating to voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation,
mischief causing damage to property, house trespass and common
intention.
09. I have heard the complainant and perused the material
available on record. At this stage, in order to ascertain whether sufficient
ground exist for proceeding, it is necessary that the complainant leads
evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.
10. Furthermore, from the perusal of the contents of the
complaint, this Court is of the opinion that the in the present case the
CT Case No.1395/2025
Harjinder SinghVs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
Page No. 5 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 5 of 6 --
identity of proposed accused is 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 its own.
11. 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 its
allegations.
12. Re-notify for pre-summoning evidence on 06.08.2026.
Announced in open Court
on 15.04.2026 (PRERNA RAI)
JMFC-02 (EAST)/KKD COURTS/DELHI
CT Case No.1395/2025
Harjinder SinghVs. Dinesh Arora URF Bittu
Page No. 6 of 6
PS: Geeta Colony
-- 6 of 6 --