Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 5
DLND020254112025
Ct. Case 18582/2025
SUBHAM DAS vs. JEEBAN BISWAL
PS: Kishan Garh
02.09.2026 @ 3:30 PM
Pr: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application filed by
the complainant u/s 175 (3) BNSS seeking registration of FIR.
2. Briefly stated, the present complaint has been filed against
the alleged for the offence of forgery, cheating, mischief, dishon-
est misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, extor-
tion. As per the complainant, the alleged who runs a travel agency
has made and sent fake air tickets claiming them to be genuine and
confirmed. The alleged also charged additional money for book-
ing confirmed air tickets. The alleged also cancelled the confirmed
air tickets in order to extort more money from the complainant.
The complainant also recommended the alleged to his friend and
his family for their travel to Bali. The alleged initially shared the
itinerary of the tour and quoted an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- in-
cluding taxes. However, the alleged shared forged air tickets
which was not having any PNR and forced the complainant to pay
more money in order to book confirmed air tickets at the last
minute. The said flight was also not direct flight rather the same
-- 1 of 5 --
Page 2 of 5
was a connecting flight. The alleged again repeated the same in-
cident with the complainant when he had to travel to Odisha.
3. Action taken report was filed by SI Prem Prakash as per
which an enquiry was conducted in the present case during which
it was found that the matter pertained to over charging of money
on booking air tickets and was purely civil in nature. It was also
stated that the alleged did not book the air tickets in advance and
waited till last minute at the insistence of the complainant to get
cheaper fare. However, additional amount was charged as the
ticket price had increased. It was also found out that the com-
plainant and his friends actually travelled on the tickets booked by
the alleged persons.
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 under Section 200 of the Code
if the Magistrate decides not to take
cognizance of the Complaint. However,
-- 2 of 5 --
Page 3 of 5
in that case, the Magistrate, before pass-
ing any order to proceed under Chapter
XII, should not only satisfy himself about
the pre-requisites as aforesaid, but, addi-
tionally, 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 inves-
tigation 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 di-
rect 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
-- 3 of 5 --
Page 4 of 5
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 com-
plainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned
at the instance of the complainant or where the nature of the evi-
dence 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 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 inves-
tigation. 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.
9. Even otherwise, 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 inves-
tigation. 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.
-- 4 of 5 --
Page 5 of 5
10. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present
application filed u/s 175 (3) BNSS is dismissed.
11. Now to come up for PSE on 12.03.2027.
12. Longer date is given considering the fact that this
Court has pendency of around 7000 cases.
[ANIMESH KUMAR]
JMFC-02/PHC/NDD
02.09.2026
-- 5 of 5 --