Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay Mahto Vs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
PS Pandav Nagar
21.04.2026
Present: Complainant with Ld. Counsel Sh. Satyanarayan Singh.
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.
02. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on
02.10.2025, the complainant came home from his shop at around 09:00
AM and found accused Vikas giving intoxicating substances to his minor
son. The complainant intervened, stopped and warned the accused that he
would lodge a police complaint against him. Later on the same day,
around 03:00 PM, accused persons namely Billu, Kajal, Chander, Vikas
and Vikas’s mother forcible entered the complainant’s house, locked the
door from inside, and assaulted the complainant brutally and threatened
that if the complainant approached the police, they would kill him and his
son.
03. It is further alleged that on the same day the complainant and
his wife returned home from their shop at about 06:45 PM, the accused
persons forcibly followed them inside the complainant’s house and
started beating the complainant mercilessly with sticks and lathis and
during assaulting one of their associates stabbed the complainant in his
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 1 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 1 of 7 --
left side of chest with a knife. They also misbehaved complainant’s wife
by pulling her clothes. Thereafter one of the neighbours called the police
at 112, vide reference no. 12025644 dated 02.10.2025. After several visits
to the PS from the very next day, in the evening, complainant called the
IO then he threatened the complainant over the phone by saying “Why
are you calling again and again?
04. It is further stated that on 04.10.2025, complainant made a
writtnen complaint against the above-said accused persons to the SHO PS
Pandav Nagar, Delhi through speed post receipt bearing no.
ED90712934IN as well DCP Vigilance through speed post bearing no.
ED907129338IN but no action has been taken. Thereafter, the
complainant had filed the present complaint before this Court. Is is
further alleged that on the same day evening, around 06:30 PM, SI Inder
Singh came to the complainant’s house and coerced the complainant to
sign several blank papers and pre-written documents. When the
complainant refused to do the same, IO physically assaulted the
complainant and even slapped his minor son and further threatened that in
case on non-cooperation, he would falsely implicate the complainant in a
criminal case.
It is further alleged that the complainant again made a
written complaint to the SHO PS Pandav Nagar on 08.10.2025 through
Speed Post receipt bearing no. ED89163338IN as well as DCP East
through Speed Post bearing no. ED891633449IN but again no action has
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 2 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 2 of 7 --
been taken till date. Thereafer, left no alternative, the complainant filed
this application before this Hon’ble court.
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.
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
procedure to be followed while dealing with an
application U/s 156 (3) of the Code is summarized as
under:
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 3 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 3 of 7 --
(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
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 4 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 4 of 7 --
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.”
06. In the instant case, ATR was called wherein it is submitted
by the IO/HC Rajeev Kumar, No. 2083/E, P.S. Pandav Nagar, Delhi,
stating that on dated 02.10.2025, during day emergency duty, a PCR call
was received by ASI Inder Singh regarding the quarrel between two
neighbours at H.No. 15/2, Gujjar Bhawan, Kotla village but none from
both the parties has given any statement or complaint. It is further
submitted that in the Prevention Action against both the parties, a
Kalandra u/s 126/170 BNSS was prepared and filed before the SEM
Court, Shakarpur, East District, Delhi but till the next day, none from
both the parties has given any statement. After one week, Vijay Mahto
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 5 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 5 of 7 --
has given a complaint and the same is filed for taking opinion on injury
on MLC of Vijay Mahto in LBS Hospital in which simple injury was
found. On complaint of Vijay Mahto, a leagl action u/s 115 BNS has been
taken and the copy of the same along with copy of NCR is given to the
complainant. The complainant has filed his complaint regarding getting
his child toxicated with Bidi but it was not filed prior to the said
complaint and photographs of his child while taking Bidi, there is no
visible face of that person who is toxicating the child of the complainant.
It is further submitted that the from the enquiry of the locals he found that
there is no any previous quarrel between both the parties.
08. 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.
09. 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.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is
no merit to the present application and accordingly, the application u/s.
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 6 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 6 of 7 --
175(3) of BNSS stands dismissed. However, the complainant is granted
an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of her
allegations.
11. Re-notify for pre-summoning evidence on 18.07.2026.
Announced in open Court
on 21.04.2026 (PRERNA RAI)
JMFC-02 (EAST)/KKD COURTS/DELHI
CT Case No. 1432/2025
Vijay MahtoVs. Billu Mahto alias Virender Mahto
Page No. 7 of 7
PS: Pandav Nagar
-- 7 of 7 --