Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No. 1268/2024
CANARA BANK vs. VEECON MEDIA & BROADCASTING & ORS.
14.12.2024 @ 4:30 PM
Pr: 	None
1. 	Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application filed by the complainant
u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR.
2. 	Briefly stated, as per the complaint, the alleged company M.s Veecon
Media and Broadcasting Private Limited is a private limited company and has been
maintaining 	a 	current 	bank 	account 	no. 	0157201005950 	at 	Canara 	Bank,
Diplomatic 	Enclave 	Branch, 	Chanakyapuri, 	New 	Delhi. 	On 	12.10.2020, 	the
complainant bank had received truncated image of the cheques issued by the
alleged company drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Planet Case Media Services
Limited. The said cheques were presented for encashment. Due to certain technical
glitch, the said cheques were cleared and an amount of Rs. 1,36,00,000/- was
credited in the bank account of Planet Case Media Services Limited even though
the account of the alleged company was having insufficient funds. When the
complainant bank approached the alleged company and the Planet Case Media
Services Limited to return/reverse the amount, they denied to return the same.
3. 	Action taken report was filed by SI Sanjeev Chaudhary, PS Chanakya Puri as
per 	which 	no 	cognizable 	offence 	was 	made 	out 	in 	the 	present 	case. 	The
complainant bank has also filed recovery suit which is still pending.
4. 	I have perused the materials available on record and have heard Ld. Counsel
for the complainant.
5. 	In the judgment titled as Subhkaran Luharuka and Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) & anr., 2010 (3) JCC 1972 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, certain
guidelines were enumerated pertaining to applications u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. One such
guideline is as follows:
“Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under
Chapter XII of the code when an application under Section
156 (3) of the Code is also filed alongwith a Complaint
Page 	of	1 	3
-- 1 of 3 --
under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not
to take cognizance of the Complaint. However, in that case,
the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under
Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre-
requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be
satisfied that it is necessary to direct Police investigation in
the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the
possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the
witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance
of 	complainant, 	and 	the 	matter 	is 	such 	which 	calls 	for
investigation by a State agency.
The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reasons
as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead
of Chapter XV of the Code.”
6. 	The complainant has relied upon the judgment of Lalita Kumari vs.
State of U.P., 2013 (6) CTC 353, however, the said judgment only deals with the
duties of the police and does not direct the Magistrate to order registration of FIR
under section 156 (3) Cr.PC in each and every case. It should be noted that
direction for registration of FIR U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is a serious matter and cannot be
given in a mechanical manner. In Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739,
it has been observed that the objective of the police investigation is collection of
evidence regarding the offence.
7. 	Therefore, police investigation is necessary only in those cases where
the evidence is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced
by the witnesses on being summoned at the instance of the complainant or where
the nature of the evidence is technical. Further, in Vikrant Kapoor vs. State and
Anr. 2012 IV AD Delhi, it has been observed in the case where the complainant is
in possession of evidence to prove allegations, there should be no need to pass an
order u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
8. 	In the instant case, the complainant is aware of the witnesses who are
to be examined and / or in possession of complete details of the complaint /
documents. The mode and manner in which the alleged offence is stated to have
been committed is clear. As per the submissions, identity of the accused persons is
known to the complainant. Thus, the complainant has brought nothing on record to
suggest as to what evidence is required to be collected through police investigation.
Page 	of	2 	3
-- 2 of 3 --
9. 	Therefore, the offence committed, if any, may be proved by leading
evidence by the complainant himself. No active or passive assistance required from
the state machinery for investigation. Hence, there is no requirement of police
investigation in this case for the purpose of collection of evidence. The case, if any,
can be proved by the evidence of the complainant. If any further evidence would be
required, the same can be summoned by the court at the required stage u/s 202
Cr.PC.
10. 	Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present application filed u/s
156 (3) Cr.PC is dismissed.
11. 	Now to come up for PSE on 25.01.2025.
[ANIMESH KUMAR]
JMFC-02/PHC/NDD
13.12.2024
Page 	of	3 	3
-- 3 of 3 --