Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
NEW DELHI
CC No.83721
Puran Chand Tamta Vs. R.C. Sabharwal & Ors.
28.03.2022.
:ORDER:
1. Vide this Order I shall decide application of complainant moved
u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C.
2. On the complaint of the complainant and application U/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. status report / action taken report was called from the PS concerned.
The same was filed by IO SI S. K. Chandolia PS Tilak Marg. According to the
status report no cognizable offence is made out.
3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, perused the record
and have gone through the relevant provisions of the law.
4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Judgment of M/S Skipper
Beverages Pet. Ltd. VS State [2002 Crl. LJ NOC 333 (Delhi)] has held that;
CC No. 837-21 Puran Chand Tamta Vs. R. C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
“Section 156 empower Magistrate to direct police to
register case and initiate investigation, but his power
has to be exercised judiciously and not in
mechanical manner. Those cases where the
allegations are not very serious and the complainant
himself is in the possession of evidence to prove
allegation, there should be no need to pass order
under section 156.”
5. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahbad in the Judgment of Sukwasi Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh [2008 Crl. LJ 472] has held that merely because
complaint discloses a cognizable offence, application under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C is not bound to be allowed. It is also held that,
“Application under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 are now coming in torrents.
Provisions under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 should be used sparingly. They
should not be used unless there is something unusual
or extra ordinary like miscarriage of justice, which
warrants a direction the police to register a case. Such
applications should not be allowed because the law
provides them with an alternative remedy of filing a
complaint, therefore recourse should not normally be
permitted for availing the provisions of section 156 (3)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The reference is,
therefore, answered in the manner that it is not
incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application
under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and there is no such legal mandate.
He may or may not allow the application in his
discretion.”
CC No. 837-21 Puran Chand Tamta Vs. R. C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) & Anr [2013 VIII AD (DELHI) 403] has held that:
“4. Section 156(3) empowers the Magistrate to refer
and direct the police to investigate the cognizable
offence. It is however not necessary to refer every
complaint filed under Section 200 to the police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C.
Remedy under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a
discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the
word 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his
mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is
satisfied that the information reveals commission of
cognizable offence/offences and also about necessity
of police investigation for digging out of evidence
neither in possession of the complainant nor can be
procured without the assistance of the police. The
complainant, as a matter of right, cannot insist that the
complaint case filed by him/her should be directed in
every eventuality to the police for investigation.”
7. In view of the above discussed facts & circumstances of the case, as
alleged by applicant / complainant in his application and considering the
nature of offences alleged to have been committed and in the light of ratio
of above discussed judgments, this court is of the humble opinion that this
is not a fit case for invoking powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and
for directing the SHO concerned to register an FIR and conduct
investigation for the following reasons:
* The identity of the accused persons is already known.
CC No. 837-21 Puran Chand Tamta Vs. R. C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
* All the incriminating facts are already with in the knowledge of the
complainant.
* No facts are to be unearthed so as to required aid of police and it is
also not the case where the collection of evidence is required.
* No custodial interrogation of the accused persons is necessary.
* The evidence required in the case is within the reach of the
complainant.
* Furthermore, in case police aid is required at any stage, the same
can be sought in terms of Section 202 Cr. PC.
8. In view of above discussion the application of the applicant
/complainant Sh. Puran Chand Tamta under section 156(3) Cr.
P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(UMESH KUMAR)
MM07/PHC/Delhi/28.03.2022
CC No. 837-21 Puran Chand Tamta Vs. R. C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --