Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 33
Ct Cases 371/2025
Mahendra Kumar Rawat Vs. M/S A2Z Infraservices Limited
(Parliament Street)
20.03.2025
Present: Sh. Arun Shukla, Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Sh. Parminder
Singh Sandhu, Sh. Mayank Ahoja and Sh. Prakhar
Singh, Ld. Counsel for complainant with
complainant.
Matter is fixed for passing of order on the application filed
by the applicant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (henceforth CrPC, 1973)/175 (3) BNSS seeking
directions to the SHO, PS Parliament Street to register an FIR
and to investigate the matter.
In brief, the case involves a complaint filed by complainant
Mahendra Kumar Rawat, who alleges financial and criminal
misconduct by Amit Mittal, the Director of A2Z Infraservices
Ltd. Complainant was involved in the preparation of a Bill of
Quantity (BOQ) for a tender floated by the MCD for facility
management services at the Dr. SPM Civic Centre, New Delhi.
Amit Mittal persuaded complainant to help A2Z secure the
tender. During the course of the project, it was revealed that A2Z
was blacklisted by the World Bank, and the MCD debarred the
company from the tender, although this debarment was later
overturned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Complainant so
claims that to avoid provident fund and ESI payments for
employees, Amit Mittal used an outsourced company (M/s L&K
Services Pvt. Ltd.), violating the tender conditions.
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
Additionally, complainat alleges that despite performing
his duties, he was not paid as agreed, and his attempts to resolve
the issue were ignored. The situation escalated on 02.12.2024,
when Dr. Nivedita, representing Complainant, visited Amit
Mittal's office to discuss the payment dispute. During the
meeting, Mittal allegedly misbehaved with Dr. Nivedita,
assaulted her, and made inappropriate physical contact with
malicious intent
In the reply filed by the Investigating Officer (IO), it is
stated that the dispute between complainant and proposed
accused is primarily a civil matter regarding payment and does
not fall under the jurisdiction of Police Station Parliament Street.
Furthermore, the alleged incident of misbehaviour with Dr.
Nivedita occurred in Gurugram, outside the jurisdiction of the
concerned police station.
Before examining the merits of the aforesaid application, I
find it expedient to refer to the law regarding Section 156(3) of
CrPC, 1973.
In
M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, 2001(2) JCC
(Delhi) 67, the Hon'ble High Court, has observed as under:
“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 the complainant
himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there
should be no need to pass orders under Section 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
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
produce evidence before the court and interest of justice demand
that the police should step in the help of the complainant”.
In the case of
Mohd. Salim vs State, (2010) 175
DLT 473 -
“11. The use of the expression may" in sub-section (3) of s.
156(3) of the Code leaves no doubt that the power conferred
upon the Magistrate is discretionary and he is not bound to direct
investigation by the Police even if the allegations made in the
complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the
facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may feel
that the matter does not require investigation by the Police and
can be proved by the complainant himself, without any
assistance from the Police. In that case, he may, instead of
directing investigation by the Police, straight away take
cognizance of the alleged offence and proceed under s. 200 of
the Code by examining the complainant and his witnesses, if any.
In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the Police
only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is
necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to
suffer in the absence of investigation by the Police. The
Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation
by the Police without first examining whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is
actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint
are simple, where the Court can straight away proceed to conduct
the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and
proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the
Police under 156(3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations
made in the complaint require complex and complicated
investigation of which cannot be undertaken without active
assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be
appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the
Police. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely
as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while
considering an application seeking investigation by the police”.
This being the legal position, based on the averments made
in the application, arguments furthered by the counsel and
documents filed on record, I am of the view that a case is made
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
out for directing registration of FIR. The reasons for reaching this
conclusion are as follows:
a. The allegation made in the application, prima facie
indicate towards the commission of a cognizable offence. (See:
Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP, WP (Crl) No. 68/08, dated
12.11.2013)
b. Perusal of record shows that there are allegations of
cheating/misappropriation against the accused. At this juncture,
it would be pertinent to record that the complainant has raised
serious allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and financial
misconduct involving Amit Mittal and A2Z Infraservices Ltd.
The accusations include the wrongful deduction of amounts
owed to the complainant, which may constitute criminal offenses
like cheating, fraud, or breach of trust, warranting a criminal
investigation. This further extrapolates the gravity of the offence.
c. The complaint highlights that Amit Mittal circumvented
tender requirements by outsourcing employees to another
company, M/s L&K Services Pvt. Ltd., in violation of explicit
terms in the MCD tender. This raises concerns about potential
criminal conduct related to fraud and misrepresentation in the
tender process.
d. The nature of allegations against the accused shows that
the complainant is not in a position to collect the evidences on
his own and the intervention of an investigating agency is
required.
In view of the same, the application of the applicant
is allowed and SHO concerned is directed to register the present
complaint under appropriate section of law without being
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
influenced by the section mentioned in the complaint and the
person named as accused persons and take up the investigation.
It is, however, made clear that this order is no
direction to SHO to immediately arrest the accused. The police
should first investigate the matter and find out whether actually
any offence has been committed or not. The investigating officer
may arrest the accused only if the circumstances so warrants, in
view of the guidelines issued in judgment filed
“Avnesh Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar, Crl. appeal No.1277/14, dated 02.07.2014”.
After completion of investigation, the SHO is to file final
report of charge sheet as per result of investigation.
To come up for compliance of the order and supplying of
FIR to complainant on 28.03.2025.
Copy of this order be sent to the SHO concerned for
compliance.
Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed.
(Sahil Monga)
JMFC-06/PHC/ND/20.03.2025
-- 5 of 5 --