Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 52 Ct Cases / 37645/2024
Jyoti Bangar Vs. State
10.04.2026
ORDER
1. The present application u/s 175 (3) BNSS has been filed by the
applicant/Complainant on the ground that the the proposed accused Smt.
Rajender Kaur has executed a sale deed on 04.02.2022, both in the
capacity of the Vendor as well as the purchaser, qua property bearing no.
R-38, Inderpuri, New Delhi. It is submitted that the said property is a
joint property, which has been bequeathed to the LRs of one Sh. Swaran
Singh, who expired in 1994. It is submitted that despite the said fact, the
proposed accused in the alleged capacity of GPA holder of Swaran Singh,
has executed a Sale Deed in 2022 after more than 20 years of his death,
with a view to deprive the other LRs, including the complainant of the
said property. It is further submitted that the GPA dated 10.02.1995
referred in the said sale deed is also forged and fabricated. The
complainant had filed the complaint with the SHO concerned and DCP
concerned. However, no action was taken on the said complaint and
hence the present application was filed.
2. ATR was filed, as per which, EO/ASI Joginder has submitted that
a civil suit is pending between the parties in relation to the property in
question and as per the submissions in the said civil suit, the
applicant/complainant has failed to produce the original will and the
defence of the proposed accused in the civil suit is that the said will was
later cancelled and GPA and Will was executed in favour of the proposed
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
accused. As such, it was stated that the nature of the dispute is civil and
no consignable offence is made out.
3. Ld. Counsel for complainant had argued on the line of allegation
made in the complaint, therefore, the same can be safely omitted in order
to maintain brevity. Further, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has
submitted that the sale deed has been executed by the proposed accused
only after she received summons in the civil suit for partition filed by the
present applicant/complainant.
4. After perusal of case file and hearing arguments, this court is
conscious of the settled law that u/S. 175 (3) BNSS (pari materia to section
156 (3) Cr.P.C), the Magistrate has not to pass the order mechanically and
has to apply his judicial mind. On this point, decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in
M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd vs State, 2001 IV AD
(Del) 625 may be referred to in which it was held as under:
“7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empow-
ers 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 allega-
tions are not very serious and the complainant him-
self is in possession of evidence to prove his allega-
tions 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
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
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 pro-
ceeding 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 & Ors."
5. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in V.P. Sharma v. State of
(NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 2009 XAD (Delhi) 709, held that “
the insistence to
direct the Magistrate to take the other course of exercise of directing regis-
tration of FIR by calling for an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is
putting the entire CrPC on a different pedestal. It is being raised by people
who does not want to lead evidence or who does not have evidence to sub-
stantiate the complaint in accordance with law.”
6. In view of the facts & circumstances of the present case, consider-
ing that the accused is known to the complainant, there is other civil litiga-
tion pending between the parties, evidence is in the possession of the com-
plainant (i.e., copy of the will as well as the sale deed), no grounds for or-
dering registration of FIR are made out in the present case. Inquiry, if any
may be ordered after recording of statement of complainant, as per the pro-
visions of BNSS (section 225 BNSS).
Therefore, application U/s 175 (3) BNSS stands dismissed on the
following grounds -
i. The identity of the accused is already known to the
complainant.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
ii.All the incriminating facts are within the knowledge of the
complainant.
iii. No facts are to be unearthed so as to require aid of police
and it is also not the case where the collection of evidence is re-
quired
iv. Custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary.
v. The evidence required in the case is within the reach of the
complainant.
(Twinkle Chawla)
JMFC-04/PHC/ND/
10.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --