Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 61
Ct Cases 1532/2024
Anand Mohan Grover And Others Vs. Ansal Properties And Infrastructure Ltd
And Others (Barakhamba Road)
05.11.2024
Present : Sh. Jatin Sapra, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Clarifications given. Be put up for orders at 4:00 P.M. today itself.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
JMFC-05/PHC/ND
05.11.2024
At 4:00 P.M.
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application filed by the
complainant u/sec 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant and the other
victims had invested their money with the proposed accused in the form of Fixed
deposit whereby the proposed accused had assured a return of 12.5 % in form of
interest, however it is alleged that the proposed accused only paid the return till
30.06.2019, and thereafter they stopped the payment. It is also alleged that the
complainant demanded the money back however, neither the money was
returned nor interest is being paid. As such it is alleged that the proposed accused
had siphoned off the money and had misappropriated the money of the
complainant along with other victims and had cheated them. A complaint was
-- 1 of 3 --
made to the PS Barakhamba Road, however, no action was taken.
3. ATR was called from the concerned PS. As per the same it has been
stated that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble NCLT bd no cognizable
offence was found to be made out.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case which have been
revealed in the ATR, this Court is of the opinion that field investigation is not
required in the present case. All the evidence is within the reach of the
complainant. No new facts are to be unearthed and the custodial interrogation is
not needed. The recourse to section 202 CrPC can be taken, if any need for
police investigation arises, in future. The legal position with respect to use of
powers under section 156(3) CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Court of
Delhi in M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State 92 (2001) DLT 217,
“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
held the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even
Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with
the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 20001 (1)
Supreme Page 129 titled " Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
-- 2 of 3 --
Ors."
5. Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed herein
before and the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the
application under section 156(3) stands dismissed.
6. Complainant is at liberty to lead PSE on 28.02.2025.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
JMFC-05/PHC/ND
05.11.2024
-- 3 of 3 --