Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: --1--
52 Ct Cases / 41289/2024 uma sharma Vs. state and ors /0 (Vasant
Kunj South)
06.09.2025
Present: Complainant with Ld. counsel.
Put up for orders at 04.00 P.M.
(SIDDHANT SIHAG)
ACJM-02/New Delhi District/PHC
06.09.2025
At 04.00 P.m.
Present: None.
Arguments on application u/s 175(3) BNSS already
heard.
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she had
rented 4 shops from alleged Sanjay Sehrawat, situated in Ishwar
Singh Market, Rangpuri Road, Mahipalpur, which were run in the
name of Uma Wear and Jai Matching Centre and the total rent of
the aforementioned shops was Rs. 28,000/-. In June 2024,
complainant was facing financial crunch and could not pay rent,
however, she assured the complainant that she will pay the same in
July 2024. On 29.06.2024, alleged Sanjay Sehrawat snatched the
keys of the aforementioned shops from the complainant, however,
complainant did not take any action as the alleged assured her that
the keys will be returned on payment of rent. On 07.09.2024
contd...
-- 1 of 4 --
--2--
complainant tried to contact the alleged several times to pay the
rent but the alleged did not answer the call nor did he reply to her
messages. On 15.09.2024 complainant got to know that some
unknown person was sitting inside and running her shop.
Accordingly, it is submitted that alleged committed criminal
trespass by illegally opening the locks of the shops in question and
had misappropriated the goods lying there.
ATR was filed by EO SI Naveen. It is submitted by
EO that on enquiry it was found out that complainant had rented 4
shops from alleged Sanjay Sehrawat and the total rent of the
aforementioned shops was Rs. 28,000/- which was paid in cash and
complainant did not have any receipts qua the same. It is further
mentioned in the ATR that complainant reiterated her allegations
during the enquiry and the alleged denied the same by saying that
husband of complainant had himself handed over the keys to the
alleged on account of non-payment of rent for 4-5 years. It is
further mentioned in the ATR that alleged provided a recording of
audio call between the complainant and neighboring shopkeeper
wherein complainant was heard saying that she handed over the
keys to alleged on account of non-payment of rent. Alleged also
provided the EO a video recording of the time when the shops
were opened for cleaning as neighboring shopkeepers had
complained of foul smell coming from the shops. In this regard,
EO also examined neighboring shopkeepers who corroborated the
contd...
-- 2 of 4 --
--3--
version of the alleged. During enquiry, it was found out by EO that
no articles were shifted or taken away by the alleged. Therefore, it
was found out that the matter pertained to non-payment of rent and
no cognizable offence was found to be made out.
Heard and perused available record.
In this regard, it becomes imperative to keep in
consideration the circumstances, when an application or prayer u/s
175(3) BNSS should be entertained by the court. In
Ms. Skipper
beverages P.Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the
circumstances when the powers of magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C
(corresponding to Section 175(3) BNSS) should be exercised, has
been explained as follows:
"7. 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 help
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
contd...
-- 3 of 4 --
--4--
complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by
Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled
"Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors."
After going through the complaint and hearing the argu-
ments, it is seen that the entire evidence is either in possession of the
complainant or the complainant can get the same summoned
through the process of this Court and the assistance of the police
agency is not required in the present case. Besides, if after examina-
tion of the complainant, any police assistance is required, the Court
is within its power to direct investigation u/s 225 BNSS.
Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no
ground for this court to exercise jurisdiction u/s 175(3) BNSS.
Hence, the prayer u/sec. 175(3) BNSS made by the complainant is
hereby declined. However, complainant is given the liberty to pu-
ruse the aforementioned application as complaint under Section 223
BNSS.
Put up for PSE on 05.01.2026.
(SIDDHANT SIHAG)
ACJM-02/New Delhi District/PHC
06.09.2025
-- 4 of 4 --