Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVI, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW
DELHI
Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra
Ct. Case 2755/2025
PS: Tilak Marg
22.01.2026
Present: Sh. Pusph Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred by the complainant,
Ms. Vinita Sethi, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC"), praying for
issuance of directions to the Station House Officer (SHO),
Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi, to register a First
Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons and to
investigate the alleged cognizable offences.
2. The complainant has alleged that the accused No.1, who is her
real brother, in connivance and conspiracy with accused No.2
and 3 and other unknown persons, has forged and fabricated a
Will dated July 1, 2023, purportedly executed by their late
mother, Smt. Sita Mehra, with the dishonest intention of
depriving the complainant of her rightful share in the
immovable property bearing No. Z-2223, Hauz Khas, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). It is
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
further averred by the complainant that their late mother had
executed a duly registered Will dated April 28, 2014,
bequeathing her entire share in the subject property exclusively
to the complainant, to the total exclusion of accused No.1. The
complainant claims to have obtained a forensic handwriting
expert report dated February 8, 2025, which conclusively opines
that the signatures on the alleged Will dated July 1, 2023, are
forged and do not match the admitted signatures of late Smt.
Sita Mehra.
3. Upon refusal by the police to register FIR on her complaint
dated April 3, 2025, and follow-up email dated April 21, 2025,
the complainant has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under
Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging offences sections 417, 418, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
4. In compliance with the preliminary directions issued by this
Court, the SHO, P.S. Tilak Marg, through SI Pooja, has filed a
detailed Action Taken Report (ATR). The ATR records that the
police conducted a thorough enquiry into the complainant's
allegations. It notes that the complainant and accused No.1 are
real siblings residing in the same premises (different floors) and
are locked in a testamentary dispute before the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi, wherein Testamentary Petition No. 90/2024 filed
by the complainant (based on 2014 Will) and Testamentary
Petition No. 101/2024 filed by accused No.1 (based on 2023
Will) are sub-judice. The attesting witnesses to the 2023 Will
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
were examined, and they have recorded statements affirming
that late Smt. Sita Mehra executed the said Will in their
presence and that they attested the same as required under law.
5. The ATR concludes that no prima facie cognizable offence is
disclosed independent of the ongoing civil/testamentary
proceedings, as the core issue pertains to the validity and
genuineness of the competing Wills, which remains sub-judice
before a superior court; hence, registration of FIR at this stage is
deemed premature and not feasible.
6. Arguments on the present application have been
in extenso.
Complete record has been thoroughly perused.
7. Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to direct the police
to investigate a cognizable offence and submit a report under
Section 173 CrPC, without taking cognizance of the offence at
that stage; however, this power is not to be exercised
mechanically or as a matter of course. A Magistrate can order
investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC if the complaint prima
facie discloses a cognizable offence, but the order must reflect
due application of mind and cannot extend to directing
investigation into non-cognizable offences or matters requiring
pre-cognizance scrutiny of merits.
8. The legal framework governing the Magistrate's discretion in
choosing between the two options has been crystallized in the
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
landmark case of
M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
(2001 IV AD Delhi). This authoritative pronouncement
establishes that a Magistrate must exercise judicious discretion
and apply his mind before passing an order under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate's order should not be a
mechanical or perfunctory response to the complainant's
request. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those
cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is
beyond the reach of the complainant or custodial interrogation
appears to be necessary for recovery of some articles or
discovery of facts. 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;
“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.”
9. 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
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
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.”
10. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has recently held in
the case titled as Satish Kumar vs State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.
M.C. 1167/2020 as follows:
“19. In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I am of
the view that the directions for investigation under section
156 (3) of the Code cannot be given by the Magistrate
mechanically. Such a direction can be given only on
application of mind by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is not
bound to direct investigation by the police even if all
allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a
cognizable offence. Each case has to be viewed depending
upon the facts and circumstances involved therein. In the facts
and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a
decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the
complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases,
the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section
200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the
complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by
the police if it feels that the evidence is required to be collected
with police assistance. In the present case, all the facts and
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
evidence are within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he
can adduce during the inquiry conducted by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code. Even
otherwise, the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Magistrate
states that even if after leading the complainant evidence, if
need arises, an inquiry U/s 202 Cr.P.C may be conducted. So
the Magistrate has totally not shut out the police investigation.
11.
In Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6
SCC 439, it was held that the Magistrate must examine if the
allegations constitute a cognizable offence and issue a reasoned
order, eschewing routine referrals. Orders under Section 156(3)
require satisfaction of prima facie cognizable offence beyond
civil disputes.
12. The judicial precedents discussed above are taken into
consideration along with the submissions made on behalf of the
complainant.
13. Upon meticulous perusal of the application, accompanying
documents, forensic report, police complaint, and the ATR, this
Court finds that the allegations revolve entirely around the
authenticity of the Will dated July 1, 2023, vis-à-vis the
registered Will dated April 28, 2014. Both documents are
squarely before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in testamentary
jurisdiction, where the issue of genuineness, due execution, and
suspicious circumstances (including the forensic opinion) can be
thoroughly adjudicated with opportunity to all parties, including
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
cross-examination of witnesses and experts. The police enquiry,
as reflected in the ATR, has already examined the attesting
witnesses who have supported the execution of the 2023 Will,
creating a counter-narrative to the complainant's claims. At this
pre-cognizance stage, it cannot be said that a prima facie
cognizable offence of forgery etc. is made out independently, as
the dispute is quintessentially civil/testamentary in character,
motivated by inheritance rivalry between siblings. Permitting
FIR registration would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and
potential prejudice to the High Court adjudication. The forensic
report, while persuasive, merits evaluation in the testamentary
forum rather than warranting immediate criminal investigation;
the police cannot be directed to supplant the civil court's role.
The allegations levelled by the complainant, if taken at face
value, primarily revolve around the making, execution, and use
of a single disputed document, the Will dated 01.07.2023, which
forms the cornerstone of the testamentary petition filed by
accused No.1 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Test.
Case No.101/2024) and is directly challenged in the
complainant's own petition (Test. Case No.90/2024). Since, the
dispute is quintessentially document-centric and interwoven
with ongoing judicial proceedings, directing a full-fledged
police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. would not
only risk duplicating the Hon’ble High Court's fact-finding
process but also potentially prejudice its adjudication, as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Devarapalli Lakshminarayana
Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (1976) 3 SCC 252 and
Iqbal Singh
Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370.
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
14. Further, the complainant retains the liberty to pursue the present
matter as a complaint case. In the event that, during the stage of
recording pre-summoning evidence, any necessity for an
enquiry is felt, such enquiry may appropriately be undertaken in
terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Considering that the alleged
offences are primarily documentary in nature and closely
interlinked with pending judicial proceedings, the complainant
may invoke Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enquiry,
which may, if warranted, be extended to an investigation under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. to be conducted under the supervision of the
Magistrate. In the absence of any exceptional urgency or
element of public interest, there exists no justification to deviate
from the settled legal position so as to direct an investigation
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
15. In light of the above, no grounds exist to invoke Section 156(3)
CrPC. In view of the foregoing discussion, reasons and judicial
precedents, the present application under Section 156(3) CrPC
filed by the complainant stands dismissed.
16. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression of
opinion on the merit of the case.
17. Application is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be
given dasti if requested for.
(RAVI)
JMFC-07/PHC/ND/22.01.2026
Ct. Case 2755/2025 Vinita Sethi Vs. Vikas Mehra Page No. 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --