Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct Cases 819/2023
JAGJIT SINGH Vs. R.B. SHARMA ANDORS.
PS Vasant Kunj South
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Neha Priya
Ct Cases 819/2023
JAGJIT SINGH Vs. R.B. SHARMA ANDORS.
PS Vasant Kunj South
30.03.2024
Order on application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC
1. This order shall dispose off the application u/s. 156(3) Cr.PC. In
brief, it is alleged by complainant that he owned a property
measuring 370 sq. Yards in Khasra no 1452, in village Rangpuri,
Mahipalpur, Delhi and had purchased the said land from Sh.
Maphool Singh and Sh. Hoshiar Singh in the year 1992 through
GPA and other title documents. During Covid-19, some unknown
persons encroached upon the abovesaid land and built some small
structures. Thereafter, complainant removed the said structures
from his land, raised a boundary wall, installed a gate and placed
his lock upon it. However, on 07.12.2021, he came to know that
in his absence, the alleged persons broke his lock on the said
property, forcibly entered into the land and threatened the
caretaker of complainant. It is further submitted that alleged
persons have forged and fabricated title documents in their favour,
are claiming themselves to be owner of the said land and are
trying to take possession of the land of complainant illegally and
Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
Ct Cases 819/2023
JAGJIT SINGH Vs. R.B. SHARMA ANDORS.
PS Vasant Kunj South
forcibly. On the complaint of the complainant to police officials,
no action was taken. Hence, present application is filed.
2. Action Taken Report was called. As per the ATR, during the
course of inquiry, on 07.12.2021, both parties had submitted a
written complaint at the police station with the same allegations
of trespassing and illegal dispossession qua the alleged property.
Further, preliminary inquiry was conducted by the then IO/SI
Sumit and the alleged persons were found in possession of the
said property. It was found that the boundary of the said plot was
built by alleged person namely R.B. Sharma, the plot was in his
possession and the applicant Jagjit Singh had forcefully
trespassed and took possession of the said plot and deputed his
guards. Further a case FIR No. 665/21 u/s 448/380/34 IPC P.S
Vasant Kunj (South) was registered against the applicant Mr.
Jagjit Singh. During the course of investigation of the said case,
Jagjit Singh was arrested and sent to judicial custody and was
later released on bail. It is further prayed that as an FIR has
already been registered pertaining to the property in question, the
application be dismissed.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Skippers
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State1:-
1 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 514
Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
Ct Cases 819/2023
JAGJIT SINGH Vs. R.B. SHARMA ANDORS.
PS Vasant Kunj South
"It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a
Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and
initiate 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. The 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 interests of
justice demand that the police should step in to help the
complainant."
5. It is further held that:-
"Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and
controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the
police authorities in the matter of registration of
FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those
cases where the same are warranted. The Section
empowers the Magistrate to issue directions in this
regard but this provision should not be permitted
to be misused by the complainants to get police
cases registered even in those cases which are not
very serious in nature and the Magistrate himself
can hold enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed
against the accused if required. Therefore a
Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an
order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must
not pass these orders mechanically on the mere
asking by the complainant. These powers ought to
be exercised primarily in those cases where the
allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond
the reach of complainant or custodial
interrogation appears to be necessary for some
recovery of article or discovery of fact."
Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
Ct Cases 819/2023
JAGJIT SINGH Vs. R.B. SHARMA ANDORS.
PS Vasant Kunj South
6. It is also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt.
Mithlesh v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.2:-
"It is not incumbent in each and every case that the
Magistrate must direct registration of an FIR and the
consequent investigation by the local police. The
Magistrate can take an inquiry under Sec.200 Cr.P.C.
by examining the complainant and the other witnesses
which are produced and then proceed to deal with the
complaint under Sections 202 to 204 Cr.P.C. It seems
that the petitioner wants to bring bare pressure on the
other side by registration of an FIR. This is so on
account of the fact that once an FIR is registered other
side namely the accused persons would be on the run
because they will face an imminent threat of arrest and
secondly it becomes convenient for the complainant as
well because it becomes a State case where the
presence of the complainant is not required on every
date of hearing. That is the modus operandi which is
invariably adopted and aimed by every petitioner."
7. I have heard the contentions of the complainant and perused the
record. In this case, after preliminary investigation, police has
concluded that complainant is himself an accused of criminal
trespass and a case FIR No. 0665/2021 is registered against him.
The allegations in the complaint are unsubstantiated. All the
documents pertaining to the property or its possession are in
custody of the complainant himself. No fact has been specified or
pointed out qua which field investigation is necessary. Thus, no
field investigation is required. Accordingly, application under
Section 156(3) Cr.PC stands dismissed.
2 2009 (4) JCC 2609
Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
Ct Cases 819/2023
JAGJIT SINGH Vs. R.B. SHARMA ANDORS.
PS Vasant Kunj South
9. Needless to say that if at a later stage, any inquiry is required,
investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C may be directed. To prove its case,
opportunity is granted to complainant for adducing pre-summoning
evidence.
10. Re-notify the matter for pre-summoning evidence on 21.09.2024.
(NEHA PRIYA)
ACMM-02/New Delhi/PHC
30.03.2024
Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --