Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
1 of
20
Page 1 of 20
THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Cr Rev/446/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
KARTAR SINGH
S/O SH. LAXMI NARAYAN
R/O JHULJHULI VILLAGE 32,
SOUTH-WEST, DELHI -110073
… Petitioner/Revisionist
VERSUS
1. STATE
THROUGH SHO
POLICE STATION, TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001
2. BHUVNESHWAR
WORKING IN KUSHWAHA SERVICES
C-23, COMMUNITY WORK COMPLEX,
DSIIDC, KALYAN PURI, DELHI 110091.
… Respondents
Date of institution : 21.08.2025
Date of arguments : 24.07.2026
Date of judgment : 24.07.2026
Present : Sh.Pawan Kumar, Sh. Sudeep Das and Sh. Sachin Yadav,
Ld. Counsels for the revisionist through VC.
Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / R1.
Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Nitin Gautam, Ld. Counsel for
the respondent no. 2.
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION:
1.1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 438 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to
-- 1 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
2 of
20
Page 2 of 20
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973], at the instance of the petitioner/revisionist,
Kartar Singh, assailing the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-07, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi, in Ct. Case No. 41316/2024, titled “Kartar Singh v.
State through SHO, PS Tilak Marg”, whereby the application filed
by the petitioner under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023
[corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.] seeking a direction for
registration of an FIR was dismissed.
1.2. The revisionist seeks setting aside of the impugned order and a
direction to the concerned SHO to register an FIR and conduct
investigation into the offences alleged. This Court, in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction, has examined the record with a view to
ascertaining whether the order impugned suffers from any
illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity warranting
interference, without at this stage expressing any final opinion on
the merits of the rival contentions.
2. BRIEF FACTS:
2.1. The petitioner, Kartar Singh, is stated to be a Constable with the
Secretariat Security Force (SSF), Ministry of Home Affairs, posted
at the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, Patiala House,
New Delhi, and was performing duty at the entry gate of the said
premises at the material time. It is the petitioner's case that on
10.05.2024, while he was on duty at the main entrance/IN Gate,
-- 2 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
3 of
20
Page 3 of 20
Respondent No. 2, Bhuvneshwar (proposed accused), stated to be
employed with the Canteen at the said premises, approached the
gate on a motorcycle. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 did not
stop despite the petitioner's signal, that the motorcycle came into
contact with the petitioner, that Respondent No. 2 thereafter
allegedly assaulted the petitioner with a helmet, tore his uniform,
used abusive language, and is further alleged to have snatched a
gold ring from the petitioner's person.
2.2. Following the incident, the petitioner made a call to the police
helpline; a PCR unit attended the spot, and the petitioner was taken
to Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, where MLC No.
1019 dated 10.05.2024 was prepared. The petitioner thereafter
lodged written complaints before, inter alia, the Joint Secretary
(Administration), Ministry of Home Affairs (13.05.2024), the
Station House Officer, PS Tilak Marg vide GD No. 52A dated
13.05.2024, the Joint Secretary, CPV Division, Ministry of
External Affairs (20.05.2024), and the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi (27.05.2024), seeking registration of an FIR and action
against the accused.
2.3. It is on record that an Action Taken Report was called from the
concerned police station, pursuant to which the nature of injury
reflected in the MLC was ascertained to be simple, and a Non-
Cognizable Offence Information Report (NCR) bearing No.
04/2025 dated 22.04.2025 was registered under Sections 323 and
-- 3 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
4 of
20
Page 4 of 20
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [corresponding to Sections 115
and 351 of the BNSS, 2023]. No FIR was registered. Aggrieved by
the non-registration of FIR despite what the petitioner contends are
disclosures of cognizable offences — including those under
Sections 332, 353, 392, 427, 186 and 504/506(II) IPC — the
petitioner moved an application under Section 175(3)
BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Learned Magistrate,
which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated
22.07.2025, giving rise to the present revision.
3. IMPUGNED ORDER:
3.1. The operative and relevant text of the order dated 22.07.2025
passed by Sh. Ravi, JMFC-07, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi,
in Ct. Cases/41316/2024, is reproduced verbatim below:
“12. It is a well-established principle of law that when a criminal
complaint is filed before a Magistrate, and upon examination, it
appears to disclose the commission of a cognizable offense, the
Magistrate has two possible courses of action. Pursuant to Section
190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the Magistrate
may take cognizance of the complaint and conduct an inquiry in
accordance with the procedures outlined in Sections 200 and 202
of the Cr.P.C. Alternatively, the Magistrate may refer the
complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. In such cases, the Magistrate will refrain from taking
further action until the police submit a report under Section 173 of
the Cr.P.C., whereupon the Magistrate will proceed in accordance
with the law.
-- 4 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
5 of
20
Page 5 of 20
. . . . . . . . . .
18. The judicial precedents discussed above are taken into
consideration along with the submissions made on behalf of the
complainant.
19. The main purpose of investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C is
collection of evidences against respondents. The ATR and the
MLC reveals that the injury was simple in nature as per the
documentation and further that an NCR has already been lodged
qua the allegations made by the complainant. The legal action with
respect to the allegations made by the complainant has already
been taken by the police. Perusal of the provisions of IPC in light
of the allegations made reveals that no cognizable case has been
made out. Further, it is evident that no additional facts/document
would be revealed/procured respectively by sending the present
complaint to police for investigation, thereby rendering the
registration of an FIR in the present matter unnecessary. An
investigation in the present complaint would not divulge any new
set of facts. This court does not deem it feasible to exercise and
invoke it's discretionary power to issues direction for registration
of FIR. Moreover, if, during the pre-summoning evidence, it is
found that the police investigation is necessary or desirable for
elucidating the truth, then recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C. may be
taken to meet the ends of justice.
20. In light of the above mentioned factors, the present application
is hereby dismissed. The applicant has an alternative avenue for
seeking redress by pursuing the case as a complaint case and lead
PSE.
-- 5 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
6 of
20
Page 6 of 20
21. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression of
opinion on the merit of the case.
22. Copy of the order be given dasti, if requested for.”
4. GROUNDS OF REVISION:
4.1. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision petition, in
the sequence in which they have been framed, are as under:
a) Ground 1 (Para 19 of Petition): That the Learned Trial Court
failed to appreciate that the allegations of criminal intimidation,
assault using a helmet, causing hurt to a public servant while
discharging official duty, robbery, and public insult constitute
cognizable offences under Sections 506 Part II, 353, 332, 392
and 504 IPC, and that the mere lodging of an NCR under
Sections 323/506 IPC cannot override the statutory mandate
under Section 173 BNSS [Section 154 Cr.P.C.] for registration
of an FIR in respect of cognizable offences, relying on Lalita
Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
b) Ground 2 (Para 20): That the Learned Trial Court failed to
adhere to the binding precedent in Lalita Kumari (supra), which
mandates registration of FIR where information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence, resulting in miscarriage of
justice and denial of the petitioner's right to fair investigation.
c) Ground 3 (Para 21): That the petitioner suffered physical
injuries in a premeditated criminal act, as evidenced by MLC
No. 1019 dated 10.05.2024, and that the Learned Trial Court
-- 6 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
7 of
20
Page 7 of 20
failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations supported by
medical and factual evidence.
d) Ground 4 (Para 22): That the CCTV footage, MLC report, and
PCR call records constitute sufficient and credible material
warranting registration of an FIR, which the Learned Trial
Court failed to appreciate, frustrating the object of a fair and
impartial inquiry.
e) Ground 5 (Para 23): That despite several written complaints to
senior authorities, no FIR has been registered and no
investigation initiated till date.
f) Ground 6 (Para 24): That the offences alleged attract the
ingredients of Sections 332, 353, 392, 427, 504, 506(II) and 186
IPC, and that it is impermissible for the police to selectively
apply lesser provisions or cherry-pick sections so as to dilute
the gravity of the allegations, and that the Learned Trial Court
failed to note this improper exercise of discretion by the
investigating agency.
g) Ground 7 (Para 25): That the discretion vested in the Magistrate
under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not
unfettered or absolute but must be exercised judiciously,
particularly where prima facie material discloses commission of
a cognizable offence, and that the Learned Magistrate failed to
exercise such discretion in accordance with settled legal
principles.
-- 7 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
8 of
20
Page 8 of 20
5. REPLY, IF ANY:
5.1. No reply/objection/counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondent
No. 1 (State) or Respondent No. 2 has been filed on record in the
present proceedings.
6. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:
6.1. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner/Revisionist:
a) Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds set out
in the revision petition (Section 4 above), submitting that the
impugned order is perverse and contrary to the mandate of
Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1,
inasmuch as the material on record — the CCTV footage, the
MLC, the PCR call, and the written complaints — discloses the
commission of cognizable offences, including those under
Sections 332, 353, 392, 427, 186, 504 and 506(II) IPC, thereby
making registration of an FIR mandatory. It was further
submitted that the Learned Magistrate exercised discretion
under Section 175(3) BNSS mechanically and failed to
appreciate that the offences alleged, being serious in nature and
involving assault on a public servant on duty, warranted police
investigation rather than relegating the petitioner to the
complaint-case route.
6.2. Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:
a) Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the order passed by Ld. Magistrate
has not patent defects that needs to be corrected. Ld. Counsel
-- 8 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
9 of
20
Page 9 of 20
for proposed accused also submitted that order passed by Ld.
Magistrate is correct as at best the dispute is between two
individuals on parking issue.
7. SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE IN REVISIONAL JURISDICTION:
7.1. At the outset, it is necessary to record the limited compass
within which this Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 438
BNSS/Section 397 Cr.P.C. This Court is not sitting in appeal over
the order of the Learned Magistrate; interference is warranted only
where the order is shown to suffer from a jurisdictional error,
patent illegality, non-application of mind, or perversity such that it
results in a miscarriage of justice. It is with this standard in mind
that each ground of revision is examined below.
a) Findings on the CCTV footage:
i This Court has viewed the CCTV footage annexed to the
petition as (Annexure P-3), since the correctness of the
Learned Trial Court's appreciation of the material on record
— and not merely the correctness of its legal reasoning — is
squarely in issue in the present revision.
ii The footage discloses the following sequence: the revisionist
was stationed at the entry gate, performing his duty of
regulating vehicular access [in terms of the Office
Memorandum dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by
the Ministry of Home Affairs, which mandates that no
unauthorized vehicle be permitted entry without a valid
-- 9 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
10 of
20
Page 10 of 20
parking sticker/pass]. Respondent No. 2 is seen approaching
the gate on a motorcycle at a considerable speed. The
revisionist attempted to close the gate to prevent entry, but
the gate could not be closed in the limited time available
before Respondent No. 2 reached it. Respondent No. 2 is
thereafter seen to stop, alight from the motorcycle, remove
his helmet, and strike the complainant. It is a significant
feature of the footage — and one to which this Court
attaches weight — that at the moment the complainant is
seen to slap Respondent No. 2, the latter was still wearing
his helmet. This sequencing suggests that the complainant's
reaction was provoked in the immediate aftermath of
Respondent No. 2's own failure to slow down or stop the
vehicle at the checkpoint, rather than being an unprovoked
assault by the complainant.
iii These are prima-facie findings of fact recorded on a plain
viewing of the footage and are confined to what is visually
depicted; they are not, and are not intended to be, a
conclusive or final determination of guilt, culpability, or the
precise sequence of blows exchanged, which remains a
matter for evidence to be led before the Learned Trial Court.
b) Ground-wise treatment:
-- 10 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
11 of
20
Page 11 of 20
i Grounds 1 and 2 — mandatory registration of FIR under the
ratio of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh,
(2014) 2 SCC 1:
A The petitioner's principal submission, anchored in Lalita
Kumari (supra), is that once the information placed
before the police or the Magistrate discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, registration of an
FIR is mandatory and no discretion survives. This is, as a
general proposition, a correct statement of law, and this
Court proceeds on the footing that it is not open to a
Magistrate to simply disregard a disclosure of cognizable
conduct.
B The difficulty for the petitioner, however, lies not in the
correctness of the proposition but in its application to the
present facts. The Learned Trial Court's order — and the
material before this Court — reflects two distinct strands
that must be kept separate: (i) whether the allegations,
taken at their highest, disclose ingredients of a cognizable
offence; and (ii) whether, even if some ingredients are
disclosed, the case is one requiring a mandatory police-
conducted investigation as opposed to a Magistrate-
conducted inquiry under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. (or the
corresponding BNSS provisions).
-- 11 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
12 of
20
Page 12 of 20
C Lalita Kumari itself does not hold that every disclosure,
however framed, triggers an unexamined, automatic
obligation to direct police investigation as opposed to a
Magistrate proceeding to record pre-summoning
evidence; it permits categories of cases — of which cases
involving apparent inflation or embellishment of the
original complaint, and cases where the complainant is
himself possessed of the principal evidence (his own
testimony, other witnesses, and documentary/video
material), are illustrative — to be examined by way of
inquiry before process is issued, with recourse to police
assistance under Section 202 Cr.P.C. remaining available
if genuinely necessary at a later stage. On this reading,
the course adopted by the Learned Trial Court —
namely, declining to direct registration of an FIR while
expressly leaving open recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C.
— does not, in this Court's assessment, run contrary to
the ratio of Lalita Kumari, since it does not foreclose the
possibility of cognizable offences being found to exist; it
merely defers that determination to a stage where
evidence is led.
D That said, this Court does find substance in the
petitioner's grievance to the following limited extent:
the
impugned order's finding, at paragraph 19, that “no
-- 12 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
13 of
20
Page 13 of 20
cognizable case has been made out” on a reading of the
IPC provisions in light of the allegations, is expressed in
terms broader than the occasion demanded. Such a
finding, made at the threshold stage of an application
under Section 175(3) BNSS/156(3) Cr.P.C., risks
prejudging a question that Section 202 Cr.P.C. itself
contemplates being examined after evidence is led. As
recorded hereinabove, the CCTV footage does, prima
facie and without finality, suggest conduct capable of
falling within Sections 186 and 353 IPC (obstruction of
and assault/criminal force to a public servant on duty). It
would accordingly have been more accurate for the
Learned Trial Court to have confined itself to holding
that police-assisted investigation was not shown to be
necessary for collection of evidence, rather than to record
a finding on the absence of any cognizable offence as
such. This distinction, while not altering the ultimate
operative outcome for the reasons set out below, is
recorded so that it is not mistaken for a concurrence with
that specific finding.
ii Ground 3 — medical evidence (MLC No. 1019 dated
10.05.2024):
A The MLC placed on record, and the ATR called for by
the Learned Trial Court, both record the injury sustained
-- 13 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
14 of
20
Page 14 of 20
by the complainant to be simple in nature. This finding of
the Learned Trial Court is not shown to be erroneous on
the material before this Court; nothing on the face of the
MLC or in the petition controverts the “simple”
characterization recorded therein. The nature of injury
being simple does not, by itself, rule out the applicability
of provisions such as Section 332 or 353 IPC, which do
not turn solely on the gravity of injury but also on the
status of the victim as a public servant acting in the
discharge of duty and the intent with which force was
used or hurt caused; however, for the reasons discussed
under Grounds 1 and 2 above, this is a matter more
appropriately left to determination upon evidence.
iii Ground 4 — sufficiency of CCTV footage, MLC, and PCR
record to warrant FIR registration:
A As recorded in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has
independently viewed the CCTV footage and finds that it
does lend some support to the allegations of obstruction
and use of force against a public servant on duty.
However, the same footage does not, on its own, furnish
any visual corroboration of the allegation of robbery
(Section 392 IPC), which is dealt with separately below.
The existence of supporting material on some of the
allegations does not, without more, convert the
-- 14 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
15 of
20
Page 15 of 20
application under Section 175(3) BNSS into one that
must mandatorily be allowed in its entirety; the Learned
Magistrate retains the discretion, discussed under Ground
7 below, to determine the appropriate procedural course.
iv Ground 5 — delay/failure to register FIR despite multiple
representations:
A The chronology reflected in the record — representations
dated 13.05.2024, 20.05.2024, and 27.05.2024, followed
by lodging of NCR No. 04/2025 only on 22.04.2025 —
does reflect a considerable interval between the incident
and the police's eventual response. However, delay in the
police's administrative response, without more, does not
by itself establish that the Learned Trial Court's order
dismissing the Section 175(3) BNSS application is
vitiated; the question before the Learned Trial Court, and
before this Court in revision, is confined to whether the
material discloses a case for mandatory FIR registration
or judicial investigation assistance, not whether the
police were dilatory in processing the complaint
administratively. This ground, accordingly, does not by
itself advance the petitioner's case for interference.
v Ground 6 — alleged selective/dilutive application of penal
provisions (“cherry-picking”):
-- 15 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
16 of
20
Page 16 of 20
A Insofar as this ground proceeds on the footing that the
police were obliged to register every provision cited by
the petitioner without independent appraisal, it does not,
with respect, correctly state the law; the assessment of
which provisions are prima facie attracted remains a
function to be performed on the material available, and is
not a matter of the complainant's unilateral
characterization. That said, to the limited extent noted
under Grounds 1 and 2 above — namely, that the CCTV
footage does lend prima facie support to Sections 186
and 353 IPC — this Court records that the material was
not without any substance, and the observations of the
Learned Trial Court to the contrary (insofar as they
suggest a blanket absence of cognizable content) are, for
the reasons already recorded, understood to be tentative
rather than conclusive.
vi Ground 7 — exercise of discretion under Section 175(3)
BNSS/Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.:
A This ground is squarely answered by the line of authority
already extracted in the impugned order itself, namely
M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 IV AD
(Delhi); Sukwasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 Cri LJ
472 (Allahabad); Ravindra Kumar v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 403;
-- 16 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
17 of
20
Page 17 of 20
Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat,
(2015) 6 SCC 439; and Satish Kumar v. State of NCT of
Delhi, Crl. M.C. 1167/2020. The consistent thread
running through these authorities, as already recorded in
the impugned order, is that the power under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C./175(3) BNSS is discretionary, is not to be
exercised mechanically, and need not be invoked where
the complainant is himself possessed of the material
necessary to prove the allegations — as is the case here,
where the complainant is an eyewitness, is in possession
of the CCTV footage, the MLC, and the PCR record, and
can additionally examine other departmental witnesses.
On this settled position, this Court finds no error, patent
or otherwise, in the Learned Trial Court's exercise of
discretion in declining to direct police investigation,
particularly where recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C. has
been expressly kept open.
c) On the element of exaggeration and the allegation of robbery
(Section 392 IPC):
i A specific and material infirmity in the petitioner's case, on
the material before this Court, concerns the allegation that
Respondent No. 2 snatched a gold ring from the petitioner's
person. This allegation does not appear in the petitioner's
earliest written complaints; it surfaces at a later stage. The
-- 17 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
18 of
20
Page 18 of 20
CCTV footage does not furnish any visual corroboration of
this allegation. Taken together, this raises a reasonable
inference — consistent with, and not disturbing, the Learned
Trial Court's approach — that the inclusion of the robbery
allegation was directed at attracting a more serious
cognizable provision than the facts, as they actually
occurred, may bear out, and correspondingly at increasing
pressure on the accused. This Court is conscious that this
remains an observation appropriate to the present stage and
is not a finding on the truth or falsity of the allegation,
which, if the complaint case proceeds, will fall for
determination on evidence.
7.2. Synthesis:
i On a conjoint reading of the above, this Court arrives at the
following synthesis: (a) the CCTV footage does lend prima
facie support to allegations falling within Sections 186 and
353 IPC, and to this limited extent the impugned order's
broader finding that no cognizable offence whatsoever is
disclosed is not fully endorsed; (b) the allegation of robbery
under Section 392 IPC is not supported by the footage and
appears, prima facie, to reflect an embellishment introduced
after the original complaint; (c) the discretion exercised by
the Learned Trial Court in declining to direct police
investigation, as opposed to proceeding by way of pre-
-- 18 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
19 of
20
Page 19 of 20
summoning inquiry with recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C.
kept expressly open, is well within the settled parameters
laid down in the authorities discussed above and does not
disclose any error warranting interference in revision; and
(d) the ends of justice are sufficiently served by the
complaint-case route already indicated by the Learned Trial
Court, without the necessity of setting aside the impugned
order.
8. FINAL CONCLUSION:
8.1. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present Criminal
Revision Petition is DISMISSED as being devoid of merit. The
impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by Learned JMFC-07,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Ct. Case No. 41316/2024,
dismissing the application under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., is UPHELD.
8.2. It is, however, clarified that the Learned Trial Court shall
proceed with the recording of pre-summoning evidence in the
complaint case, and shall, at the stage of summoning, consider —
on the basis of the evidence led, including the CCTV footage, the
testimony of the complainant, and any other witnesses produced —
whether a cognizable or non-cognizable offence, and if so which
offence(s), is/are made out, and shall thereafter proceed to take
appropriate steps under Section 203 or Section 204 Cr.P.C. (or the
corresponding provisions of the BNSS), as may be warranted.
-- 19 of 20 --
DLND010066062025
Cr Rev/446/2025
KARTAR SINGH
Vs.
STATE AND ANR
Page
20 of
20
Page 20 of 20
Should it appear to the Learned Trial Court, during the course of
recording pre-summoning evidence, that police investigation is
necessary or desirable for eliciting the truth, recourse to Section
202 Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding BNSS provision) remains
available and is not foreclosed by this order.
8.3. No order as to costs.
8.4. Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith the Trial
Court Record (TCR).
8.5. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in open Court on
this the 24th day of July, 2026.
(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER)
ASJ-05/New Delhi District
PHC / New Delhi / 24.07.2026
-- 20 of 20 --