Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
CR No. 779/2025
State Vs Bhanu Choudhrie
29.12.2025
Fresh criminal revision received by way of assignment. It be
checked and registered.
Present: Sh. Atul Srivastava, Ld. SPP on behalf of petitioner.
Inspector/SHO Virender Tyagi and Sub-Inspector
Ashok Kumar in person.
It is argued on behalf of petitioner that Ld. Trial Court
vide order dated 19.12.2025 had ordered to register an FIR under
Section 316 (5)/318 (4)/61 (2) BNS, 2023 directing SHO Police
Station IGI Airport to file compliance report on 22.12.2025. The FIR
could not be registered as no offence had taken place in the
jurisdiction of Police Station IGI Airport. In fact, the allegations were
pertaining to the jurisdiction of Police Station Kapasera. This fact was
already mentioned in the ATR filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
In this back drop, a request was moved before Ld. Trial
Court on 22.12.2025 stating that complaint had already been
transferred to Police Station Kapasera for further legal action. The
order dated 19.12.2025 was discussed with legal branch. The
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of
Ramesh
Awasthi & Ors Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2017 (4) AD 260
was brought into the notice wherein identical issue was involved. It
was stated that to avoid any legal complication, further deliberation
-- 1 of 7 --
2
to decide proper and legal recourse, were required. It was prayed that
suitable time may be granted atleast of 30 days and matter may be
adjourned.
After going through the request for time filed by Sub-
Inspector Ashok Kumar which was duly forwarded by SHO Police
Station IGI Airport, Ld. Trial Court issued show cause notice to SHO
as well as Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar as to why the reference for
contempt should not be made to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as they
have tried to challenge the majesty and competence of Ld. Trial Court
and the request seeking time was found to be contemptuous in nature.
It is argued that order dated 19.12.2025 was legally not tenable and
Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar and SHO Police Station IGI Airport
never tried to review the order of Ld. Trial Court.
It is argued that operation of order dated 19.12.2025
and 22.12.2025 may be stayed till pendency of this revision petition.
Ld. SPP for petitioner has relied upon following
judgments/orders as under:
1.
Ramesh Awasthi & Ors Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2017
(4) AD 260;
2. Nishu Wadhwa Vs Sidharth Wadhwa & Anr.;
3. Shiv Kumar V State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors;
4. Parmeshwari Devi Vs State & Anr.;
5. Malkeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh;
6. Priyanka Srivastava Vs State of UP & Anr.;
7. ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Rashmi Sharma decided by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi on 12.01.2022’
-- 2 of 7 --
3
8. Shishu Pal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. M.C. No.
6573/2022 decided on 12.08.2025 to fortify his arguments.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
The petitioner has prayed for stay of impugned order
dated 19.12.2025 & 22.12.2025 but along with petition, copy of order
dated 24.12.2025 passed by Ld. ASJ-05, PHC, New Delhi has been
placed on record. The revision petition no. 771/2025 titled as Prakash
Lal Kapur Vs State & Anr was filed challenging the same impugned
order dated 19.12.2025 in complaint case titled as Bhanu Chaudhrie
Vs M/s Acron Build Tech Pvt Ltd. Ld. ASJ-05, PHC, New Delhi had
observed as under:
“
Further, as it is stated that FIR is yet not registered,it
is directed that impugned order is stayed, subject to that the stay shall
not be operative if the FIR is registered prior to 4.00 pm on
24.12.2025, with direction to the revisionist to intimate the order to
the SHO concerned before 4.00 pm.
In case FIR has already been registered, copy of the
same be placed on record on next date.”
Therefore, order of stay of operation dated 19.12.2025
is already in existence in view of the order passed by the Ld. ASJ-05,
PHC, New Delhi. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that till date
no FIR has been registered, so, no separate order qua stay of operation
of order dated 19.12.2025 is required to be passed by this Court as
stay is already in existence.
It is an admitted case of the petitioner that SHO Police
Station IGI Airport and Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar have been
-- 3 of 7 --
4
directed to file reply to show cause notice as to why reference may
not be sent against them. First of all, Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar
filed request before Ld. Trial Court which was duly forwarded by
SHO seeking 30 days time for deliberating over the issue as to how
order dated 19.12.2025 can be complied with in view of
Ramesh
Awasthi’s case (supra).
I have gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Ramesh Awasthi’s case wherein the order for
registration of FIR passed by the then Ld. MM was set aside by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi holding that MM had no power to direct
SHO Police Station New Ashok Nagar to register zero FIR. In the
present case, Ld. Trial Court in impugned order dated 19.12.2025 has
nowhere observed that a zero FIR has to be registered by SHO Police
Station IGI Airport.
Ld. Trial Court has observed as under:
“
Accordingly, the application filed by the complainant
under Section 175 (3) is allowed. SHO Police Station IGI Airport is
directed to investigate the allegations made in the complaint. As a
consequence of the direction to investigate, SHO Police Station IGI
Airport shall register an FIR against the proposed accused for
offences under Section 316 (5)/318 (4)/61 (2) BNS. If during the
investigation, the allegations of forgery and falsification of accounts
are also substantiated, appropriate provisions shall also be invoked”.
Therefore, submissions of Ld. SPP for petitioner are
misconceived in this regard that Ld. Trial Court had ordered for
registration of zero FIR. Ld. Trial Court had mentioned the concept
-- 4 of 7 --
5
of ‘zero’ FIR in para 5 of the impugned order that was related to
observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Lalita Kumari Vs
State of UP, WP (Crl.) No. 68/2008 dated 12.11.2013. Ld. Trial Court
never observed or directed SHO Police Station IGI Airport to register
zero FIR, therefore,
Ramesh Awasthi (supra) is of no consequence
and not applicable to the present set of facts. Moreover, Ld. ASJ-05
is already seized of the matter qua order dated 19.12.2025. So,
legality of impugned order dated 19.12.2025 shall be decided by the
Court of Ld. ASJ-05.
It is surprising to observe that the petition has been
filed by the State, however, show cause notice was issued by Ld. tiral
Court to SHO Police Station IGI Airport and Sub-Inspector Ashok
Kumar in their personal capacity, therefore, this petition ought to
have been filed by them in personal capacity and they should not have
been represented through State and that too after appointment of Sp.
Public Prosecutor.
Once an order was passed directing the SHO, Police
Station IGI Airport to register an FIR by the Ld. Trial Court, then,
SHO or legal branch or Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar or even DCP
had no authority to check the veracity of the order of the Court. The
IO/SHO are duty bound to comply with the order and if they are of
the view that order could not be complied with, then, they could have
filed the revision petition against impugned order instead of seeking
time for so called ‘deliberations’ for discussion as to how order of the
Court can be complied with.
-- 5 of 7 --
6
If this kind of approach is followed by police officials,
then it would amount to revisional powers exercised by them against
the order of Ld. Trial Court. There is no space of such approach or
view in the judicial system.
Last but not the least issue is how this revision petition
is maintainable as issuance of show cause notice by Ld. Trial Court
is purely an interlocutory order. The Ld. Trial Court has only asked
for their version. No reference as such has been referred to Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi against them.
Asking for reply cannot be said to be an adverse order.
Ld. Trial Court is well within his power and jurisdiction to ask about
circumstances, resulting in non-compliance of court’s order. There
are several legal issues involved in the present revision petition,
pointing out towards the fact as to how present revision petition is
maintainable in the present form.
Ld. Trial Court has directed Sub-Inspector Ashok
Kumar and SHO Police Station IGI Airport to file reply on
03.01.2026. It is prayed on behalf of petitioner that impugned order
dated 22.12.2025 may be stayed. If operation of the order is not
stayed, then, the present revision petition would become
infructuous.
I do find merit in the prayer as every person or litigant has a right to
have a recourse to legal remedies available to him. So, Ld. Trial
Court is requested not to insist for replies by SHO and Sub-Inspector
Ashok Kumar till pendency of this revision petition and operation of
order dated 22.12.2025 w.r.t only filing of replies by SHO Police
-- 6 of 7 --
7
Station IGI Airport and Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar is hereby stayed.
Petitioner is directed to address arguments qua
maintainability of the petition in view of the above discussion and
observations.
Let this revision petition be put up before the Court of
Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi on 03.01.2026 for further orders.
Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed for.
(Dhirendra Rana)
ASJ-07/Vacation Judge Judge/PHC/New Delhi
29.12.2025
-- 7 of 7 --