Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 99 Ct Cases / 20683/2025
ADARSH RAJ Vs. SHAILESH VATS (Parliament Street)
13.12.2025
Vide circular no. 35/G-4/Genl-I/DHC dated 24.11.2025 issued by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, the 13th December 2025 has been declared as a court sitting day.
Present: Sh. Vineet Kumar Chaudhary and Sh. Santosh Chaudhary, Ld.
Counsel complainant.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application U/s 175 BNSS
moved on behalf of complaianant. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that
the accused persons, claiming to be office bearers of Pancham Dham Nyas Trust,
approached him and represented that the Trust was engaged in public charitable
activities. It is alleged that on such representations and assurances, the
complainant was induced to part with money for charitable purposes. Between
April, 2024 and August, 2024, the complainant transferred an amount
aggregating to 1,22,25,000/- through banking channels to accounts stated to be	₹
associated with the Trust and the accused persons.
It is further alleged that the said amount was not utilised for the
stated charitable purposes and was instead diverted and misused for personal
gains by the accused persons. The complainant claims that despite repeated
requests, the amount was neither accounted for nor returned. A written complaint
dated 11.01.2025 was submitted to the concerned police station; however, no
FIR was registered, which has led to the filing of the present application under
Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 seeking appropriate directions.
ATR was filed by the EO. The same same is perused and
considered.
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Before examining the merits of the aforesaid application, I find it
expedient to refer to the law regarding Section 156(3) of CrPC, 1973.
In
M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v State, 2001(2) JCC (Delhi)
67, the Hon'ble High Court, has observed as under:
“It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to Magistrate to direct the
police to register a case and intimate 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. This 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 interest of justice demand that the police should step in the
help of the complainant”.
In the case of
Mohd. Salim vs State, (2010) 175 DLT 473 -
“11. The use of the expression may" in sub-section (3) of s. 156(3) of the Code
leaves no doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is discretionary
and he is not bound to direct investigation by the Police even if the allegations
made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the facts
and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may feel that the matter does
not require investigation by the Police and can be proved by the complainant
himself, without any assistance from the Police. In that case, he may, instead of
directing investigation by the Police, straight away take cognizance of the
alleged offence and proceed under s. 200 of the Code by examining the
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
complainant and his witnesses, if any. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct
investigation by the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency
is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the
absence of investigation by the Police. The Magistrate is not expected to
mechanically direct investigation by the Police without first examining whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery
is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple,
where the Court can straight away proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is
expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing
the buck to the Police under 156(3) of the Code. Of course, if the allegations
made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation of which
cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State
machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation
by the Police. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post
Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application
seeking investigation by the police”.
This being the legal position, based on the averments made in the
application, arguments furthered by the counsel and documents filed on record, I
am of the view that a case is made out for directing registration of FIR. The
reasons for reaching this conclusion are as follows:
a. The allegation made in the applicant and the report of the IO, prima facie
indicate towards the commission of a cognizable offence. (See:
Lalita Kumari
Vs. Govt. of UP, WP (Crl) No. 68/08, dated 12.11.2013)
b. The allegations against the proposed accused persons appear to be
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
grave and serious in nature which needs impartial investigation by the police
officials and to prevent the loss of evidence.
c. The complainant is not in a position to collect evidences on his own and the
involment of an investigating agency for the collection of evidences is required
here.
In view of the same, the application of the applicant is allowed and SHO
concerned is directed to register the present complaint against both the accused
persons under appropriate sections of BNS within 48 hours and take up the
investigation.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the complainant and Naib court.
Put up for filing of compliance report on 16.12.2025.
(Sahil Monga)
JMFC-06/PHC/ND/13.12.2025
-- 4 of 4 --